Ce discours n’a pas pris une seule ride, à l’ère des guerres de terreur et des provocations de guerres déclenchées par les bellicistes psychopathes qui mènent nos sociétés à travers les médias, les gouvernements et l’argent.
(D’autres vidéos à voir ici)
THE POWER BEHIND SARAH PALIN, by M.C. Piper (American Free Press)
‘The New Babylon – Those Who Reign Supreme : A Panoramic Overview of the Historical, Religous and Economic Origins of the New World Order. Inside the Rothschild Empire – The New Pharisees’, by Michael Collins Piper (2009)
The High Priests of War: The Secret History of How America’s Neo-Conservative Trotskyites Came to Power and Orchestrated the War Against Iraq as the First Step in Their Drive for Global Empire, par Michael Collins Piper
Le 11 septembre: coup d’État d’Israël et de ses agents dans l’administration Bush
Aussi, cinq Israéliens ont été vus sautant de joie à la vue de l’effondrement du WTC. Ils ont été appréhendés habillés en musulmans dans leur camion de déménagement de la compagnie Urban Moving System, dans lequel des passeports israéliens et des traces d’explosifs ont été trouvés (tout indique en effet que les tours jumelles ont été démolies de manière contrôlée à l’aide d’explosifs et non par l’affaiblissement de la structure sous la chaleur du feu de carburant des avions). Ces agents du Mossad (services secrets d’Israël) ont dit avoir été envoyés pour «documenter l’événement», ce qui implique une connaissance préalable du moment et du lieu de l’attentat. Peu après le 9-11, Fox News révélait qu’un réseau d’agents du Mossad utilisant la technologie Comverse opérait sous le couvert de compagnies de déménagement, de messagerie instantanée (Odigo), de kiosques dans les aéroports, et même d’étudiants en Arts. Le lendemain du 9-11, mille de ces kiosques ont fermé et les agents sont retournés en Israël. Après le 9-11, une centaine d’Israéliens ont été arrêtés, interrogés puis graciés par le Juif sioniste Michael Chertoff (Homeland Security), mais le sujet est classé «secret défense», indique Fox News.
Le financement et l’approvisionnement des combattants moudjahidines afghans ne fut pas seulement «la deuxième plus importante opération» de la CIA, cela fut aussi supervisé par le Mossad, souligne l’ex-agent du Mossad Victor Ostrovsky dans «The Other Side of Deception» (1994). Le premier attentat contre le WTC en 1993 aurait été commis par Ramsi Yousef (que certaines sources relient même aux attentats de 1995 à Oklahoma City) en collaboration avec un agent confirmé du Mossad, le moudjahidine Ahmad Ajaj. C’est dans la voiture de ce dernier que fut trouvé, peu après les attentats du 9-11, le prétendu «manuel d’entraînement d’Al-Qaida». Le «cerveau» du 9-11, Khalid Sheik Mohammed est l’oncle de Yousef. L’ancien chef des Forces spéciales conjointes contre le terrorisme du FBI, Neil Herman, qui a joué un rôle clé dans la première enquête du WTC, a temporairement occupé, après avoir quitté le FBI, le poste du regretté Suall Irwin, qui fut longtemps directeur de la section «collecte de données» pour la ligue anti-diffamation du B’Nai B’rith. Ce qui explique probablement la dissimulation, dans les hauts niveaux du FBI, de l’implication israélienne dans l’attentat de 1993 au WTC. Le juge juif sioniste Michael Mukasey, ce partisan du Patriot Act qui concéda à l’administration Bush le droit de détenir indéfiniment un «combattant ennemi», a également jugé les prévenus des attentats de 1993 au WTC, de même que les présumés terroristes du 9-11.
Dans Rebuilding America’s Defense (2000), un texte du think tank néoconservateur Project for The New American Century (PNAC), les faucons de la guerre en Irak réclament un événement catalyseur pour leur expansion hégémonique: «Le processus de transformation, même s’il entraîne des changements révolutionnaires, est susceptible d’être long, en l’absence d’un événement catastrophique catalyseur comme un nouveau Pearl Harbor». Le 9-11 fut précisément ce «nouveau Pearl Harbor» qui mena les USA en guerre contre l’Axe du Mal: tout d’abord en Afghanistan, puis en Irak, les prochains étant la Syrie, le Liban, l’Iran, la Corée du Nord. L’analogie est d’autant plus pertinente que Roosevelt savait que le Japon allait attaquer Pearl Harbor mais n’a rien fait, car le but était d’entraîner le peuple américain dans la guerre. Le PNAC est une réitération du document Clean Break: A New Strategy for Securing the Realm., écrit par le Juif néocon Richard Perle pour le Likoud de Bibi Netanyahou. Ce document visait à convaincre les États-Unis qu’il était dans leur intérêt de changer d’attitude vis-à-vis d’Israël et d’envahir l’Irak de Saddam Hussein. Cela en continuité avec le plan de l’Organisation sioniste mondiale intitulé A Strategy for Israel in the 1980’s. Sous la direction de Robert Kagan et Bill Kristol, le PNAC inclut: Paul Wolfowitz (qui fut président de la banque mondiale et secrétaire adjoint à la Défense sous Bush), Dick Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld (tous trois ont servi sous les administrations Reagan et Bush père), Richard Perle, le rabbin Dov Zakheim (contrôleur du Pentagone et PDG d’une société, SPC, offrant une technologie de téléguidage d’avion), Lewis ‘Scooter’ Libby (directeur du bureau du v-p Cheney), Eliot Cohen, Steve Rosen, Daniel Pipes (protégé de Perle et fils du théoricien anti-Soviet Richard Pipes), Robert Zoellick (nouveau président de la banque mondiale), etc. Seuls Cheney et Rumsfeld ne sont pas juifs. Perle et Cheney, tous deux membres du Council on Foreign Relations (CFR), ont tour à tour été directeur du Jewish Institute for National Security Affairs (JINSA), un puissant lobby sioniste similaire à l’American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC) dans sa promotion de la guerre au terrorisme, en Irak et en Iran. Perle, qui fut marchant d’armes pour des sociétés israéliennes, est très proche des sionistes Michael Ledeen (théoricien de la «destruction créative» du Moyen-Orient) et Eliott Abrams (juif, gendre du néocon Norman Podhoretz). Les Juifs néocons responsables de la guerre en Irak, Douglas Feith, Perle et Wolfowitz, ont tous été investigués par le FBI pour avoir passé des secrets à Israël. Pour couronner le tout, le mentor derrière la croisade démocratique de Bush était le Juif néocon Nathan Sharansky.
Le souhait d’un «nouveau Pearl Harbor» exprimé par les néocons était déjà révélé en 1998, dans un article de la revue du CFR Foreign Affairs, intitulé «The Catastrophic Terrorism: Imagining the Transforming Event»: «Un tel acte de terrorisme serait un événement catastrophique, une ligne de démarcation dans l’histoire américaine. Il impliquerait des pertes de vie et de propriété d’une ampleur sans précédent en temps de paix et minerait la signification de la sécurité en Amérique. Comme Pearl Harbor, cet événement diviserait notre passé et notre futur en un ‘avant’ et un ‘après’.» Ses auteurs sont les Juifs sionistes Ashton Carter, John Deutch et Philip Zelikow. Ce dernier a dirigé la commission d’enquête du 9-11 et le groupe de recherche sur la guerre en Irak. Dans le même numéro de Foreign Affairs se trouve un article de Daniel Pipes, «License to Kill», portant sur Ben Laden. L’ancien propagandiste anti-Soviet Pipes a popularisé le mythe du «complot terroriste djihadique international». Suivant la pensée du Juif influent Bernard Lewis, ce propagandiste du «conflit des civilisations» entre l’Islam et l’Occident a conçu en 2000 la stratégie militaire néocon contre le Liban et la Syrie. En fait, l’idée de la guerre au terrorisme vient du livre de Netanyahou «Terrorism: How the West Can Win» paru en 1986, où il prédit jusqu’à la guerre en Irak et en Afghanistan et appelle l’Occident à combattre les ennemis d’Israël, les Palestiniens et les Arabes, qui ne sont pour lui que des terroristes à anéantir. Le lendemain du 9-11, Netanyahou déclarait que cet événement est «très bon» pour les relations entre les États-Unis et Israël.
Le 9-11 n’est certes pas la première attaque terroriste israélienne «false flag» portant le blâme sur les Arabes: signalons les attentats de l’Hotel King David par l’Irgun, dirigé par le futur PM Menahem Begin, en 1946 (91 tués et 45 blessés); l’attaque contre l’Égypte en 1954 (affaire d’espionnage «Lavon»); et l’assaut du navire américain USS Liberty en 1967 (35 soldats états-uniens tués, 171 blessés). Sous le mandat d’Ariel Sharon, le Likud (la métamorphose politique de l’Irgun), a érigé le Mur autour de la Palestine (lire «Le Mur de Fer» du fondateur de la milice juive du Betar, Zeev (Vladimir) Jabotinsky.
* * *
THE ENEMY WITHIN
Michael Collins Piper
Judas Goat Number One: George W. Bush—
Shill for Zionist Theoretician Natan Sharansky:
Planning for Global War in the Name of “Democracy”
However, the truth is that Bush’s messianic call for a worldwide “democratic revolution” (enunciated in his second inaugural address and sounding much like the rhetoric of the global Trotskyite Bolshevik movement) was not really of his own making. His words were written by others far more intelligent than Young Bush. And the origins of Bush’s newfound philosophy are very telling indeed. Perhaps what is most frightening is that the rhetoric of the American president—prodded by his behind-the-scenes “advisors”—points toward more and more military action around the globe in the years to come.
Although a documentary, Bush’s Brain, suggested that Karl Rove, purportedly the president’s chief political tactician, is the mastermind who tells the president what to think, it is now clear—based on solid evidence—that Soviet-born Israeli cabinet minister Anatoly “Natan” Sharansky is the one who actually has bragging rights to that title. Despite the fact that he gained worldwide attention in the 1970s as a Soviet dissident, make no mistake in thinking that Sharansky was ever any kind of Western-style free-market conservative or anti-communist.
Instead, Sharansky was a traditional old-line communist who—like many others in the Soviet Union—simply ran afoul of the ruling regime.
But thanks to an adoring international media, Sharansky capitalized on his imprisonment by the Soviets—who accused him of being a CIA spy—and emerged as a much-touted “human rights activist.”
Later, after his release from prison, Sharansky emigrated to Israel and soon established himself as one of Israel’s most outspoken extremist leaders who damned even Israel’s heavy-handed Prime Minister Ariel Sharon—known as “the Israeli Caesar”—as being “too soft” on the Palestinian Christians and Muslims.
The role of Sharansky in guiding Bush’s thinking is no “conspiracy theory.” Instead, disclosures from the White House itself—published, although not prominently, in the mainstream media—demonstrated that not only did Sharansky personally consult with the president in drafting the now-controversial inaugural address, but also that at least two of Sharansky’s key American publicists were among those brought in to compose Bush’s revolutionary proclamation.
Bush himself told The Washington Times in an interview published on January 12, 2005—even prior to his inauguration: “If you want a glimpse of how I think about foreign policy, read Natan Sharansky’s book, The Case for Democracy. It’s a great book.”
Buried in the very last paragraph of a very lengthy article published on January 22, 2005 The New York Times reported that “The president was given [Sharansky’s] book and asked Mr. Sharansky to meet with him
in the Oval Office . . .Mr. Bush also gave the book to several aides, urging them to read it as well. Mr. Sharansky visited the White House last November.”The Times did not say who gave the book to the president in the first place, but to find out who actually pressed the book upon the president might be very telling indeed.
Affirming the Times’ disclosure, The Washington Post likewise revealed on January 22, 2005 (although, again, in the closing paragraphs of an extended analysis) that an administration official said that planning for Bush’s address began immediately after the November election and that Bush himself had invited Sharansky to the White House to consult with him and that, in the Post’s words,“Sharansky also helped shape the speech with his book.”
It was the Post which revealed that two well-known hard-line “neoconservative” supporters of Israel—William Kristol, publisher of billionaire Rupert Murdoch’s Weekly Standard magazine, and psychiatristturned-pundit Charles Krauthammer, a strident advocate for harsh U.S. military and economic warfare against the Arab and Muslim worlds—were also among those brought in to help draft the president’s address.
Kristol—in particular—and Krauthammer are generally acknowledged even in the mainstream media in America as being among those we’ve dubbed as “the high priests of war” who were instrumental in orchestrating the U.S.war against Iraq,was a measure high-up on Israel’s “want list” for the Bush administration.
It is no coincidence that the individual on the White House staff whom the Post said helped set up the planning conferences to direct Bush’s thinking was one Peter Wehner, director of the White House Office of Strategic Initiatives.Wehner—it happens—is a Kristol protégé, having been his deputy when Kristol was serving as chief of staff for former Reagan administration Education Secretary William Bennett himself a protégé of Kristol’s very influential father, famed “ex-Trotskyite” communist-turned-neo-conservative, Irving Kristol.
So, considering Kristol’s wide-ranging input, shaping Bush’s mindset, it is really no surprise that, as the Post put it,“Bush’s grand ambitions excited his neoconservative supporters who see his call to put the United States in the forefront of the battle to spread democracy as noble and necessary.”
Meanwhile, for his own part,William Kristol chimed in with an editorial in The Weekly Standard on January 24, 2005 declaring “it’s good news that the president is so enthusiastic about Sharansky’s work. It suggests that, despite all the criticism, and the difficulties, the president remains determined to continue to lead the nation along the basic foreign policy lines he laid down in his first term.”
The BBC News noted on January 22, 2005 that Sharansky “has in fact been moving in American conservative circles for some time.”
As far back as July 2002—just prior to the time Bush delivered a hotly-debated speech calling for “democratization” of the Arab world—neo-conservative Deputy Defense Secretary Paul Wolfowitz was in attendance at a conference addressed by Sharansky during which the Israeli leader put forth the same demand.
Shortly thereafter, when Bush gave his own speech, echoing Sharansky, the Israeli hard-liner “provided an important bit of last minute affirmation,” according to American neo-conservative Richard Perle, who—between stints in government, during which time he was suspected of espionage on behalf of Israel—peddled weapons for an Israeli arms manufacturer.
Although the news of Sharansky’s profound influence was not widely known among grassroots Americans, it was big news in Israel where The Jerusalem Post headlined a story declaring “White House takes a page out of Sharansky’s democracy playbook.” In fact, the Israeli newspaper actually went so far as to say that Bush is “doing [Sharansky’s book] promotion free of charge,” pointing out that the president hyped Sharansky’s book in an interview on CNN.
But it’s not only Bush who is relying on Sharansky. On January 20, 2005, Scotland’s independent-minded newspaper, The Scotsman, noted that “Mr. Sharansky’s influence on the way Washington now sees the world was clear this week when Condoleeza Rice quoted him during her Senate confirmation hearings,” confirming that the Israeli hard-liner is very much the brains behind Bush policy.
The fact that Sharansky happened to be in charge of “diaspora affairs” in the Israeli cabinet was significant indeed.The term “diaspora” refers to all Jews living outside the borders of Israel and the “mission statement” of Sharansky’s cabinet office says it places its “emphasis on Israel, Zionism, Jerusalem and the interdependence of Jews worldwide.
In essence, this translates into a single, general aim: securing the existence and the future of the Jewish people wherever they are.” In short, Sharansky is no less than a powerful spokesman for the worldwide Zionist movement.And now, beyond any question, his views are directing George Bush’s worldview.
Considering all of this, it is no wonder that on January 22, South Korea’s English-language media voice, Chosun Ilbo, went so far as to describe Sharansky’s philosophy as outlined in his book The Case for Democracy—now being touted by Bush—as “a blueprint for U.S. foreign policy.”
The propaganda line of Israeli hard-liner Natan Sharansky upon which the president’s inaugural address was based was virtually a complete turn-about from Bush’s rhetoric in the 2000 presidential campaign.
This contradiction is a point that—theoretically—should have given pause to many Republicans who voted for Bush the first time he ran for the presidency.
Enthusiastically proclaiming in a front-page analysis on January 21, 2005 that Bush’s address laid the “groundwork for [a] global freedom mission,” The Washington Times—a leading “neo-conservative” voice which advocates a hard-line globalist foreign policy in sync with Israel’s security demands—stated flat out that:
President Bush’s inaugural address sends the United States on a new, expansionist and far more aggressive global mission to free oppressed countries from dictators—a sharp departure from his 2000 campaign that warned against becoming the world’s policeman . . . an ambitious, perhaps unprecedented internationalist doctrine that could deploy U.S. military power far beyond America’s present commitments . . . .
For its own part, the Times’s daily “liberal” counterpart, The Washington Post, declared editorially on January 21, 2005 that Bush’s address was “more Wilsonian than conservative”—that is, recalling the messianic internationalism of former U.S. President Woodrow Wilson, hardly a hero of American nationalists or traditional conservatives.
Effectively endorsing Bush’s turnabout, the Post acknowledged.
that Bush’s pronouncement “promised an aggressive internationalism, one that if seriously pursued would transform relations with many nations around the world,”saying that if Bush is serious,U.S. policy “is on the verge of a historic change.”
James Steinberg, the former deputy national security advisor in the Clinton administration, found Bush’s emergence as the voice of globalism quite intriguing, inasmuch as it is a determined betrayal of what had been traditional Republican opposition to international meddling.
Steinberg told The New York Times on January 21, 2005 that it is “quite remarkable that one of the notions that’s been so resisted by Republicans is the idea of a deep interdependence in the world, and now [Bush has] essentially adopted the notion that tyranny anywhere threatens freedom anywhere.”
In the same vein, hard-line American-based Zionist Robert Kagan, one of the most aggressive neo-conservative media voices, echoed American Free Press (AFP) when he wrote in the Post on January 23, 2005 that Bush’s “goals are now the antithesis of conservatism.”
According to Kagan,“They are revolutionary.”
In its January 31, 2005 editorial,AFP called Bush a “revolutionary,” and this came very much to the dismay of many traditional conservatives who—inexplicably—still viewed the president as the voice of American patriotism.
These folks are evidently unaware that what is called “neo-conservatism” is anything but what Americans long viewed to be “conservative” in the traditional American nationalist sense of the word.
However, Zionist Robert Kagan understands this distinction and that’s precisely why he said that “Bush may lose the support of most oldfashioned conservatives” once they realize what his new internationalist policy is all about. In short, conservatives have been “had.”And that’s why AFP reminded its readers not to forget what Jesus said: “Beware wolves in sheep’s clothing” or, rather,“Beware the Judas Goats.”
In the meantime, however, Sharansky’s influence on American Republicanism—under George Bush and in the years ahead—remains substantial. In fact, there’s a new brand of Republicanism, at least according to Ken Mehlman, whom President George W. Bush personally hand picked, following the 2004 election, to serve as chairman of the Republican National Committee.
In a March 14, 2005 speech in Washington to the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC), the lobby for Israel, the GOP’s national chairman candidly and enthusiastically described himself as a “Sharansky Republican.”
What was so striking is that this appeared to be the first time in American history that the chairman of one of the national parties used the name and ideology of a political leader from a foreign nation—one known as an “extremist” at that—to describe his own ideology.
In the past, there were self-described “Taft Republicans,” who supported the presidential ambitions of the nationalistic and traditionally conservative Sen. Robert Taft of Ohio—popularly known as “Mr. Republican”—who was the undisputed leader of the America First bloc in Congress from 1936 until his untimely (and some say “suspicious”) death in 1953.
Later, there were the conservative “Goldwater Republicans”who—under the leadership of Sen. Barry Goldwater (Ariz.)—set the stage for the ascendancy of the “Reagan Republicans” who came to power in 1980 under the popular two-term president, Ronald Reagan.
At the same time, in opposition to the Taft and Goldwater Republicans, there were the more liberal and internationalist-minded Republicans who rallied behind New York Governor Thomas E. Dewey and Wall Street lawyer Wendell Willkie,dubbing themselves—naturally—“Dewey Republicans” and “Willkie Republicans.”
And later, of course,many of those same party leaders evolved into “Rockefeller Republicans” following New York Governor Nelson Rockefeller. And there were even a few folks, for a time, who called themselves “Eisenhower Republicans,” stressing their so-called “mainstream, moderate” point of view (however defined) in the spirit of America’s 35th president, Dwight D. Eisenhower.
Now, however, the new GOP national chairman is not calling himself a “Reagan Republican” or even a “Bush Republican” (after the reigning GOP president who is wildly popular among grass-roots members of his party), but, instead, is hailing a foreign leader—a known extremist—as the role model for what 21st century Republicanism is all about.
And this is a direct legacy of George W. Bush who so proudly installed Sharansky as one of the GOP’s ideological dictators, betraying the historic legacy of the GOP. Sharansky’s policy of promoting “global democracy”is hardly in the American tradition, but it’s now part and parcel of what the “modern” Republican Party is all about.
Washington Report on Middle East Affairs, April 2003, pages 14-15, 90
The Pentagon’s Dynamic Duo: Richard Perle and Paul Wolfowitz
By Richard H. Curtiss
Perle quickly exploited his position at the Defense Policy Board to the fullest.
Whatever comes next in the battle against Saddam Hussain, Deputy Secretary of Defense Paul Wolfowitz has achieved a lifelong aim. He has diverted the search for a just solution to the Israeli-Palestinian problem onto the back burner while turning up the heat on the problem of Saddam Hussain.
Some Wolfowitz-watchers warn that he is “the most dangerous man in the current administration.”
Dying For Zion
« Why would Iraq attack America or use nuclear weapons against us? I’ll tell you what I think the real threat [is] and actually has been since 1990 – it’s the threat against Israel.«
Philip Zelikow, Director of the 9/11 Commission and Bush administration official
Because Israel’s neighbors opposed the Zionist project of creating an exclusivist Jewish state, the idea of weakening and dissolving those neighbors was not an idea just of the Israeli Right but a central Zionist goal from a much earlier period, promoted by David Ben-Gurion himself. As Saleh Abdel-Jawwad, a professor at Birzeit University in Ramallah, Palestine, writes:
« Israel has supported secessionist movements in Sudan, Iraq, Egypt, and Lebanon and any secessionist movements in the Arab world which Israel considers an enemy. Yet the concern for Iraq and [Israel’s] attempts to weaken or prevent it from developing its strengths has always been a central Zionist objective. At times, Israel succeeded in gaining a foothold in Iraq by forging secret yet strong relationships with leaders from the Kurdish movement. » 
Israel can shape its strategic environment, in cooperation with Turkey and Jordan, by weakening, containing, and even rolling back Syria. This effort can focus on removing Saddam Hussein from power in Iraq — an important Israeli strategic objective in its own right — as a means of foiling Syria’s regional ambitions.
« Such uncertainty [about Iraqi WMDs] will, by itself, have a seriously destabilizing effect on the entire Middle East. It hardly needs to be added that if Saddam does acquire the capability to deliver weapons of mass destruction, as he is almost certain to do if we continue along the present course, the safety of American troops in the region, of our friends and allies like Israel and the moderate Arab states, and a significant portion of the world’s supply of oil will all be put at hazard. As you have rightly declared, Mr. President, the security of the world in the first part of the 21st century will be determined largely by how we handle this threat. » 
« Earlier today, I ordered America’s armed forces to strike military and security targets in Iraq. They are joined by British forces. Their mission is to attack Iraq’s nuclear, chemical and biological weapons programs and its military capacity to threaten its neighbors.
Their purpose is to protect the national interest of the United States, and indeed the interests of people throughout the Middle East and around the world.
Saddam Hussein must not be allowed to threaten his neighbors or the world with nuclear arms, poison gas or biological weapons. » 
When PNAC was founded, a group of neo-cons wrote a spin-off paper elaborating on « Clean Break ». It was entitled « Rebuilding America’s Defenses » or RAD. The title implies that agents of Israel, (Perle and co.) got together and wrote a policy paper that was concerned only with America’s future security and establishment as the preeminent world power. A PAX Americana if you will. They even got Dick Cheney to participate to give it a more « American » look and less of an « Israeli » front group image. 
The ziocons are working hard to establish hegemony in the Middle East for the security of Israel, and permanent bases in Afghanistan are just one way they seek to gain a foothold for the eventual implementation of their plan to eliminate Iran and whoever else they believe poses a threat to their beloved ziostan.
Dear Mr. President:
We write to thank you for your courageous leadership in the war on terrorism and to offer our full support as you continue to protect the security and well-being of Americans and all freedom-loving peoples around the world.
In particular, we want to commend you for your strong stance in support of the Israeli government as it engages in the present campaign to fight terrorism. As a liberal democracy under repeated attack by murderers who target civilians, Israel now needs and deserves steadfast support. This support, moreover, is essential to Israel’s continued survival as a free and democratic nation, for only the United States has the power and influence to provide meaningful assistance to our besieged ally. And with the memory of the terrorist attack of September 11 still seared in our minds and hearts, we Americans ought to be especially eager to show our solidarity in word and deed with a fellow victim of terrorist violence.
No one should doubt that the United States and Israel share a common enemy. We are both targets of what you have correctly called an “Axis of Evil.” Israel is targeted in part because it is our friend, and in part because it is an island of liberal, democratic principles — American principles — in a sea of tyranny, intolerance, and hatred. As Secretary of Defense Rumsfeld has pointed out, Iran, Iraq, and Syria are all engaged in “inspiring and financing a culture of political murder and suicide bombing” against Israel, just as they have aided campaigns of terrorism against the United States over the past two decades. You have declared war on international terrorism, Mr. President. Israel is fighting the same war.[…]
Furthermore, Mr. President, we urge you to accelerate plans for removing Saddam Hussein from power in Iraq. As you have said, every day that Saddam Hussein remains in power brings closer the day when terrorists will have not just airplanes with which to attack us, but chemical, biological, or nuclear weapons, as well. It is now common knowledge that Saddam, along with Iran, is a funder and supporter of terrorism against Israel. Iraq has harbored terrorists such as Abu Nidal in the past, and it maintains links to the Al Qaeda network. If we do not move against Saddam Hussein and his regime, the damage our Israeli friends and we have suffered until now may someday appear but a prelude to much greater horrors. Moreover, we believe that the surest path to peace in the Middle East lies not through the appeasement of Saddam and other local tyrants, but through a renewed commitment on our part, as you suggested in your State of the Union address, to the birth of freedom and democratic government in the Islamic world.[…]
Israel’s fight against terrorism is our fight. Israel’s victory is an important part of our victory. For reasons both moral and strategic, we need to stand with Israel in its fight against terrorism.
[Colin] Powell felt Cheney and his allies — his chief aide, I. Lewis « Scooter » Libby; Deputy Defense Secretary Paul D. Wolfowitz; and Undersecretary of Defense for Policy Douglas J. Feith and what Powell called Feith’s « Gestapo » office — had established what amounted to a separate government. 
[Retired Lt Col Karen Kwiatkowski] recounts one incident in which she helped escort a group of half a dozen Israelis, including several generals, from the first floor reception area to Feith‘s office. « We just followed them, because they knew exactly where they were going and moving fast ».
When the group arrived, she noted the book which all visitors are required to sign under special regulations that took effect after the Sep. 11, 2001 attacks. « I asked his secretary, ‘Do you want these guys to sign in’? She said, ‘No, these guys don’t have to sign in’ « . It occurred to her, she said, that the office may have deliberately not wanted to maintain a record of the meeting. 
- Neocon lackey Ahmed Chalabi, the lying criminal  who was convicted and sentenced by the Jordanian authorities for embezzlement and bank fraud in his absence (he fled the country before the police got their hands on him), and who provided most of the information that the ziocons used as « evidence » of Saddam having ‘links-to-Al-Qaeda’ and WMDs , was a long-time friend of 10th Dan Grandmaster ziocon Richard Perle , co-author of A Clean Break which cited the removal of Saddam Hussein as the key to the beginning of a securer Israel;
- The Niger documents  forged to make it look like Saddam’s regime had tried to acquire yellowcake uranium from Africa came from Israeli dual national ziocon Michael Ledeen   who came under the scrutiny of the FBI for that very reason but will probably (definitely) get away with it;
- Paul Wolfowitz, « architect » of the Iraq war and the man who pushed hardest for it is an Israeli dual national and a spy for Israel, having forwarded to an Israeli government official a classified U.S. document back in 1978, and has a sister living in Israel;  [75b] From The Israel Lobby and U.S. Foreign Policy, a scholarly paper authored by Stephen Walt of Harvard University and John Mearsheimer of the University of Chicago:
Wolfowitz is … committed to Israel. The Forward once described him as « the most hawkishly pro‐Israel voice in the Administration, » and selected him in 2002 as the first among fifty notables who « have consciously pursued Jewish activism. » At about the same time, JINSA gave Wolfowitz its Henry M. Jackson Distinguished Service Award for promoting a strong partnership between Israel and the United States, and the Jerusalem Post, describing him as « devoutly pro‐Israel, » named him « Man of the Year » in 2003. 
Not surprising, considering Richard Perle is director of it;
- Lewis « Scooter » Libby, another OSP operative, Cheney’s chief of staff, and Israeli dual national, credited with pushing Cheney to go public about Saddam’s supposed ties to Al Qaeda and 9/11 and pushing Colin Powell to include the fake reports about Mohammed Atta’s ties to Iraqi intelligence in his famous 2003 speech to the U.N. , was responsible for the outing of Valerie Plame as a CIA agent to punish her husband, Joseph Wilson, for exposing the Niger documents as fraudulent . He was sentenced to 2 ½ years in prison but was later pardoned by Bush; 
- Douglas Feith, dual citizenship ziocon who worked out of both the OSP and PCTEG to bring us the Iraq war was also investigated by the FBI for spying for Israel and forced to leave the National Security Council (NSC) for his double-dealing 
- Larry Franklin, Feith‘s deputy who worked under him at the OSP in the Pentagon  was sentenced to more than 12 years in prison  for leaking documents to Israel in the AIPAC spy scandal; 
- Harold Rhode , Feith‘s Middle East Specialist and Undersecretary of Defense for Policy was investigated by the FBI over passing on classified information to Israel:
An UPI report said another under-investigation official Mr Rhode « practically lived out of (Ahmad) Chalabi’s office ». Intelligence sources said that CIA operatives observed Mr Rhode as being constantly on his cell phone to Israel, discussing US plans, military deployments, political projects and a discussion of Iraq assets. 
- William (or Bill) Luti , Chief of the OSP and another of Feith‘s men, having worked under Feith and Cheney before Bush wasn’t elected, was subject to the same FBI investigation, for the same reason.
Since the Pollard case , U.S. intelligence and law-enforcement sources have revealed to the Prospect that at least six sealed indictments have been issued against individuals for espionage on Israel’s behalf. It’s a testament to the unique relationship between the United States and Israel that those cases were never prosecuted; according to the same sources, both governments ultimately addressed them through diplomatic and intelligence channels rather than air the dirty laundry. A number of career Justice Department and intelligence officials who have worked on Israeli counterespionage told the Prospect of long-standing frustration among investigators and prosecutors who feel that cases that could have been made successfully against Israeli spies were never brought to trial, or that the investigations were shut down prematurely. 
« AIPAC is the most powerful lobby and has pushed this war from the beginning. Because they are so well organized, and their members are extraordinarily powerful — most of them are quite wealthy — they have been able to exert power. » 
The Franklin-AIPAC-Israeli investigation was more than a spy case. It involved the future of US-Middle East relations and more specifically whether the « neo-cons » would be able to push the US into a military confrontation with Iran. Franklin was a top Pentagon analyst on Iran, with access to all the executive branch deliberations on Iran. AIPAC lobbying and information gathering was aggressively directed toward pushing the Israeli agenda on a US-Iranian confrontation against strong opposition in the State Department, CIA, military intelligence and field commanders. 
It is an echo of the one-two punch secretly planned by the pro-Likud faction in the Department of Defense. First, the United States would take out Iraq, and then Iran. David Wurmser, a key member of the group, also wanted Syria included. These pro-Likud intellectuals concluded that 9/11 would give them carte blanche to use the Pentagon as Israel’s Gurkha regiment, fighting elective wars on behalf of Tel Aviv (not wars that really needed to be fought, but wars that the Likud coalition thought it would be nice to see fought so as to increase Israel’s ability to annex land and act aggressively, especially if someone else’s boys did the dying). 
- Abram N. Shulsky, heads the Iranian Directorate, former OSP director, a member of PNAC, and an ardent devotee of Jewish neo-conservative icon Leo Strauss , who believed that the truth was for the elite to keep from the clueless masses for their own (not so) good. In a 1999 paper he co-authored with Gary Schmitt of the AEI called Leo Strauss and the World of Intelligence, Shulsky writes
« Strauss‘s view certainly alerts one to the possibility that political life may be closely linked to deception. Indeed, it suggests that deception is the norm in political life, and the hope, to say nothing of the expectation, of establishing a politics that can dispense with it is the exception. » 
- John Trigilio, a Defense Intelligence Agency (DIA) analyst and former OSP staffer;
- Ladan Archin, an Iran specialist, OSP staffer who worked with Larry Franklin and the other zio-spies, studied with Paul Wolfowitz;  
- Michael Ledeen, Israeli dual national, OSP ziocon, most likely candidate for culpability in the Niger document forgery;
Une guerre contre l’Iran serait un désastre, même pour les USA
traduction de Mecanopolis.org
Extraits des chapitres « conclusions» et «Postscriptum» du livre de Stephen Sniegoski: «The Transparent Cabal»
Ce livre a défendu la thèse que les origines de la guerre américaine contre l’Irak tournent autour de l’agenda de guerre américaine, dont les bases furent esquissées en Israël pour favoriser les intérêts israéliens, et que des néoconservateurs américains, amis d’Israël à l’intérieur et à l’extérieur du gouvernement Bush, firent avancer avec passion. Pour documenter cette affirmation, des preuves étendues furent produites dont beaucoup d’entre elles proviennent d’un document néoconservateur détaillé et compromettant. (p. 351)
L’influence des néoconservateurs fut avant tout démontrée par le fait que leur agenda de guerre se différencia radicalement de la politique traditionnelle américaine au Moyen-Orient, qui se concentrait sur le maintien de la stabilité régionale. La politique des neocons a par conséquent provoqué l’opposition de membres de l’élite traditionnelle dans le domaine de la politique étrangère/sécurité nationale. (p. 352)
Une partie fondamentale et plutôt tabouisée du sujet de ce travail est la combinaison intégrale d’Israël avec l’agenda de guerre néoconservateur. Les contours essentiels de cet agenda de guerre pour le Proche-Orient – à l’aide duquel la sécurité d’Israël devait être renforcée par la déstabilisation des voisins d’Israël – se profilèrent en grande partie dans la pensée du Likoud des années 1980. Des leaders neocons – Richard Perle, David Wurmser, Douglas Feith ‑ soumirent en 1996 au Premier ministre israélien Netanyahou un plan comparable, selon lequel les Etats-Unis auraient remplacé Israël dans son rôle de parti agresseur. Cependant, il y avait également une liaison israélienne lorsque l’Amérique s’achemina vers une guerre avec l’Irak, lorsque le gouvernement Sharon insista pour une attaque et favorisa l’idée d’une menace immédiate par les armes de destruction massives de Saddam. Plus tard, Israël aurait joué un rôle semblable en appuyant une ligne dure contre l’Iran.
Comme révélé dans cette étude, les néoconservateurs entretenaient d’étroits liens avec Israël et avaient indiqué, à l’occasion d’une série de manifestations, la sécurité d’Israël comme but de leur agenda de guerre pour le Proche-Orient. Mais ils insistaient sur le fait que les intérêts américains et israéliens concordaient et que le but fondamental de leurs recettes politiques consistait en un renforcement de la sécurité américaine. Afin de tirer au clair la justesse de cette affirmation des neocons, il est instructif d’évaluer les fruits de leur politique.
Principalement: dans quelle mesure un renforcement de la sécurité américaine a-t-il effectivement résulté de leur politique de guerre? Pour l’Amérique, les conséquences négatives de la guerre en Irak sont assez évidentes. Jusqu’à fin mars 2008, plus de 4000 Américains ont perdu la vie, le nombre de blessés dépassa 29 000, et on avait dépensé près de 490 milliards de dollars pour cette guerre.
Le total des coûts économiques de la guerre, auxquels n’appartiennent pas que les dépenses de guerre directes, mais aussi les effets de la guerre sur l’économie en général, était de loin plus élevé. Joseph Stiglitz, l’ancien président du conseil national des experts économiques, prix Nobel et professeur d’économie à la Columbia University, et Linda Bilmes, experte financière de l’Université de Harvard calculèrent dans leur livre intitulé «The Three Trillion Dollar War: The True Cost of the Iraq Conflict» [La guerre à trois billions de dollars: les coûts effectifs de la guerre], paru au début 2008, que le coût global de la guerre d’Irak se monterait à 3 mille milliards de dollars. (Cette estimation repose sur l’hypothèse que les Etats-Unis retireraient toutes leurs troupes d’ici 2012). Les coûts de la guerre ont déjà dépassé ceux de la guerre du Vietnam qui dura douze ans. Les auteurs font remarquer que la seule guerre des Etats-Unis qui coûta plus fut la Seconde Guerre mondiale. Ces coûts qui donnent le tournis ont déjà constitué un facteur important de la récession de l’économie américaine. (p. 352)
La guerre d’Irak n’a pas seulement aggravé le terrorisme, mais elle a aussi affaibli la puissance de l’Amérique dans le monde. Avant tout, cela a gravement nui à la position américaine au Proche-Orient. Richard Haass, le président du Conseil des relations étran gères, prétendit dans son essai «La fin d’une ère», paru fin 2006 dans Foreign Policy, que la guerre américaine contre l’Irak avait conduit à la fin du «primat américain» au Proche-Orient. (p. 354)
Les néoconservateurs voyaient la politique extérieure américaine à travers les lunettes des intérêts d’Israël, comme les Likoudniks ont défendu les intérêts d’Israël. Ils voyaient très probablement les intérêts d’Israël vraiment comme étant ceux de l’Amérique et ne se considéraient pas comme des gens qui sacrifiaient les intérêts des Etats-Unis en faveur d’Israël. Chez des individus orientés par une idéologie, l’automystification n’a rien d’extraordinaire.
Dire que les néoconservateurs tentaient de promouvoir les intérêts israéliens n’est cependant pas la même chose que de pré tendre que les néoconservateurs exécutaient les ordres du gouvernement d’Israël. Il n’y a pas d’indication qu’ils auraient reçu des instructions dans ce sens. Les positions des neocons et du gouvernement israélien se recoupaient dans bien des questions déci sives: concernant la guerre d’Irak; concernant la nécessité de liquider le pouvoir iranien; concernant la défense de l’Etat juif contre les Palestiniens. Dans les faits, la position des néoconservateurs concernant l’Iran – dans les années 1980 de façon bienveillante, ces dernières années de façon hostile – était totalement calquée sur celle d’Israël. Il semble cependant que quelques éléments importants en Israël affirmaient des opinions modérées et ne s’identifiaient pas à l’entier de l’agenda de guerre néoconservateur. C’est facile à comprendre. Avant 2001 déjà, il était patent que les neocons faisaient partie de l’aile dure des opinions israéli ennes, comme ils l’ont clairement affirmé dans leur papier «A Clean Break» publié en 1990, qui avait appelé le gouvernement likoud de Netanyahou de rompre avec le «processus de paix» du parti travailliste et d’adopter une attitude beaucoup plus agressive. Même le dur Netanyahou se distança de la mise en œuvre de leur ligne belliciste sans compromis. De même, le gouvernement Olmert s’abstint de suivre l’agenda néoconservateur lors de l’invasion du Liban en 2006. Apparemment la scène politique conflictuelle israélienne impose des limites à la marge de manœuvre d’un leader poli tique, de sorte que la mise en œuvre d’un programme politique devient très difficile. Malgré cela, il y a eu une relation évidente entre les neocons et des politiciens israéliens qui dépassait le simple échange d’idées. Des neocons n’étaient pas seulement proches de Netanyahou, mais encore de Sharansky, Dore Gold et dans une moindre mesure de Sharon. Ce qui est le plus significatif, et ça a été souligné dans tout le livre, c’est que l’agenda de guerre pour le Proche-Orient ne provenait pas du cerveau des neocons, mais qu’il reflétait la pensée des purs et durs du Likoud. Leurs idées fondamentales sur le nouvel ordre du Proche-Orient avaient été pensées pour l’essentiel en Israël pour faire avancer les intérêts israéliens. (p. 365 ss.)
Les preuves de la relation entre les néoconservateurs et les Israéliens avec la guerre des Etats-Unis au Proche-Orient sont renversantes et d’accès public. Il n’y eut pas de «conspiration» obscure et secrète, une expression moqueuse qui est souvent utilisée par des gens qui veulent railler la représentation d’une relation des neocons avec la guerre. Mais dans le domaine de la politique, comme le faisait remarquer George Orwell, « il faut un effort constant pour voir ce qui vous pend au nez ». On serait en droit d’espérer que les Américains, dans leur autoproclamé «pays des hommes libres», ne devraient pas craindre de discuter honnêtement des dessous et des motivations pour la guerre d’Irak et de la politique des Etats-Unis au Proche-Orient en général. Ce n’est qu’en comprenant la vérité que les Etats-Unis pourront peut-être prendre les mesures correctrices adéquates au Proche-Orient; à défaut d’une pareille compréhension, la catastrophe se rapproche de façon inquiétante.
Pour créer une politique moyen-orientale dans l’intérêt des Etats-Unis et de leur population, il est apparemment essentiel d’avoir une vue claire de la situation. Des individus qui dans leurs analyses se trompaient complètement, comme c’était le cas pour les néoconservateurs dans leurs prises de position publiques, ne devraient pas participer à l’élaboration de la politique dans ce domaine. Par ailleurs, l’axe principal de la détermination d’une pareille politique devrait être mis sur les intérêts des Etats-Unis, sans interférence des intérêts d’autres pays. Des individus, ayant des relations étroites avec des Etats étrangers, ne devraient pas participer à l’élaboration de la politique américaine dans des domaines qui concernent les intérêts de ces Etats. C’est un conflit d’intérêts évident. Aucune de ces affirmations ne signifie que les Etats-Unis ne doivent pas réfléchir à la moralité internationale – étant entendu que tous les pays doivent être mesurés à la même aulne – mais on ne peut pas attendre des Etats-Unis qu’ils poursuivent une politique qui renforcerait la sécurité de certains pays étrangers au détriment de leurs propres intérêts. Un pareil principe de base devrait être valable pour Israël comme pour tous les autres pays. Lorsqu’il devient évident que les intérêts des Etats-Unis sont sacrifiés au profit d’un autre pays, des Américains ne devraient pas se laisser dissuader de démontrer cela. La survie à proprement parler des Etats-Unis et de leur population pourrait en dépendre. (p. 372 ss.)
Rien ne garantit l’application d’une guerre contre l’Iran ni les aspects complémentaires de l’agenda de guerre des néoconservateurs. Cependant, au vu de la rhétorique qui s’exprima au printemps 2008, une pareille guerre parut être une possibilité indubi table du gouvernement Bush à son déclin. Vu la position de dur de McCain et de sa proximité des neocons, il apparaît que la probabilité d’une guerre contre l’Iran serait encore plus grande s’il était élu. Et un pareil engagement ne pourrait pas non plus être exclu sous Obama ou Clinton malgré leur critique de la guerre de l’Irak. On peut dire avec certitude que – bien que la politique moyen-orientale des neocons a une longue histoire – cette poli tique, et les neocons eux-mêmes, sont loin de devenir de l’histoire. (p. 382)
Lawrence Dennis sur l’importance capitale du non-interventionnisme
One Prophet’s Appeal to Reason:
The Dangers of Zionism, Imperialism and Nuclear Madness
During the mid-20th century—from the early 1930s through the 1960s—Dennis established himself, beyond question, as America’s foremost nationalist theoretician.
An outspoken opponent of imperial meddling, Dennis warned early on against American involvement in the affairs of the Third World—par- ticularly the Middle East—and predicted disaster for America (and the world) as the ultimate consequence.
What Dennis said during his heyday is so profound and so prophetic that his commentary is worth resurrecting in these modern times.
One cannot help but read Dennis’s remarks—as published in his small- circulation (but still highly and quietly influential) newsletter, The Appeal to Reason (published from the 1950s through the early 1960s)—and reflect upon how his analysis of world events, even then, would so accurately mirror the propaganda and warmongering bombast that led to the American invasion of Iraq and the events that followed.
Although best remembered as the towering genius who stood trial in 1944 (along with some 30 others) on trumped-up « sedition » charges for opposing Franklin Roosevelt’s drive to push America into what became World War II, it is largely forgotten that Dennis was also a forthright critic of the subsequent Cold War era that followed.
During the Cold War, Dennis was fiercely adamant about the dangers of saber-rattling against the Soviet Union. He recognized that communism could not survive and asserted unswervingly that American intervention in the Third World in the name of « fighting communism » would only make new enemies for the United States, setting the stage for Soviet exploitation of Third World distaste for American adventurism.
Neither a « conservative » nor a « liberal, » Dennis defied (and excoriated) those labels, well before it became fashionable to do so and long prior to the time that honest intellectuals came to understand the terms ceased to be relevant (and perhaps never were).
And in this age of so-called « political correctness, » it is probably appropriate to note that although Dennis was of African-American her- itage on both sides of his family, he « passed » for being « white. » While he never formally denied his ethnic antecedents, much to the subsequent dismay of modern-day howlers who demand—in retrospect—that Dennis should have « acted Black » and thereby effectively denied himself the opportunity to become the world-traveling diplomat, economist, writer and lecturer this multi-talented human being happened to be.
Ironically, it has really only been in recent years that many American nationalists of both the « left » and the « right » have finally come to recognize the wisdom of Lawrence Dennis.
Today even Pat Buchanan echoes the anti-imperialist, America First position that Dennis put forth, calling for critics of « Pax Americana » on both the « right » and the « left » to unite against the New World Order, which is—now all too clearly—a mad, plundering war-driving (and war-driven) amalgam of the forces of international plutocratic capitalism and Zionism, united in an Axis of Evil.
Long prior to Buchanan, however, independent-minded journals such as Right, The American Mercury, The Spotlight (all since defunct) and now American Free Press and the bimonthly American history magazine, The Barnes Review, were commemorating Dennis.
Willis A. Carto—the publisher of The Barnes Review—was a friend of Dennis and treasures his rare collection of Dennis’ newsletter, The Appeal to Reason, upon which is based the following distillation of Dennis’ thought regarding the combined danger of U.S. global meddling and support for Zionism in the era of nuclear weapons.
Reflecting upon the intense thought and carefully-crafted writing and analysis by Dennis on the big issues of war, capitalism, imperialism and expansion and his opposition thereto—not to mention the interplay of those forces with the spiral of Zionist influence in the wake of the establishment of the state of Israel and the rise of nuclear proliferation—the reader will be astounded at how truly prescient Dennis was, writing more than 50 years ago.
It is no wonder that a host of influential 20th Century personalities relied on Dennis for his insights: from former Ambassador Joseph P. Kennedy (father of President Kennedy) to General Robert Wood and on to famed aviator Charles Lindbergh and such free-thinking historians as William Appleman Williams and Harry Elmer Barnes, among many others who respected the dynamic brain-power of this amazing man.
While one may not agree with everything Dennis had to say—nor would Dennis have demanded that—it is impossible to deny that Dennis was a prophet with an articulate capacity to cut to the chase and analyze world affairs in a lively, no-nonsense style. His words are a clarion call for a global offensive against Israel’s nuclear Golem.
By Lawrence Dennis
The dynamics of religious wars are hate (of sin) and fear (of the foreign devil). This we have. The American people were never adequately told that World Wars I and II and our Korea fiasco were all religious wars [although] I have been very much alone harping on the religious war nature of World Wars I and II and of the post World War II state of permanent Cold War.
This aspect of America’s wars since 1914 has to be seen in the light of history and of analogy with the religious wars of the 17th century and earlier. It was not so obvious in World War I as in World War II. The Kaiser and Emperor Franz Joseph of Austria Hungary had no counterparts of Hitler’s Nazism or Mussolini’s Fascism or of Russian and Chinese communism today.
World War I was turned into a sort of religious war as a matter of practical necessity in order to sell the American people intervention in that war on the side of the Allies. They could not have been lined up for that war by being told it would be good business for the United States or that it was necessary for American defense.
The Americans had to be told it was a war to end war. That made it for them a religious war. Selling World War II to the American people as a religious war was rendered easy by Hitler and his « ism. »
Before each of the last two world wars and before the next one, Americans have had the delusion that foreign devils can be prevented or deterred from doing evil if only we do the right things. The right things are building up a tremendous war potential and constantly denouncing the foreign devils for being what they are and doing what they do. When these delusions prove wrong and when the foreign devil refuses to comply with one of our ultimatums, as did the Japanese before Pearl Harbor, and when the foreign devil at last strikes, as at Pearl Harbor, then the American ideology dictates, as up to that point, what action we, as a nation, must take.
The road block to debate is that almost no one of stature with a career or a livelihood to worry about is willing to risk it by telling the American or British people that they made a mistake by fighting two world wars which most of them still think they won.
To say anything like this is to invite the charge of defending the German devils and of arguing that it was not worthwhile to save the world from German conquest and domination. The answer is that the results of fighting to save the world from one devil have been far worse than would have been letting the Germans and the Russians fight it out or of letting the Chinese and the Japanese do likewise.
The answer is that there never was and there never will be just one devil from whom the world is to be saved by crusaders who, by defeating this one devil, can usher in the Millennium.
Non-interventionist America was a great success in the 19th century. An interventionist America has been a failure in world affairs since World War I. In world affairs since World War II, the U.S. has bitten off more than it can chew.
The idea that the British, the Germans or the Americans could, in the 20th century, repeat the Roman Empire of two millennia earlier was widely heralded in this country and the Western world. But it was always absurdly unrealistic.
World unification under anyone formula seems every day less and less possible. Law and force offer no formula for world peace. More tolerance is the only constructive approach to the war problem. War is becoming unacceptable by reason of nuclear weapons. Nuclear war can only be averted by appeal to reason and self-interest.
What is U.S. foreign policy or Mideast policy? It is intervention with force and money in every major foreign crisis or conflict in the name of abstractions like collective security, the world rule of law, defense, and the United Nations.
The United Nations are not united. Retaliatory co-annihilation is not defense. An interventionist policy is unpredictable and uncontrollable. Intervention can’t succeed. Only non-intervention and playing a balance of power game could serve the United States.
The U.S. invented nuclear weapons and launched nuclear war … our contribution to the decline of the west. Therefore, the U.S. must prevent nuclear war by deterring those with nuclear weapons from using them. Absurd! We predict, once the atomic trigger is pulled, total war is on.
A non-interventionist or a neutrality policy, now so often miscalled an isolationist policy, gives a nation like the U.S. far more initiative and power to shape events and determine results than our present policy of unlimited and unpredictable intervention.
Thanks to 40 years of American world meddling since 1917, the world is now in a bigger mess than ever. American intervention with money or force creates a situation or balance of forces which can only be maintained with continued and often increasing deployment of American force and money.
The latest in the international situation is the passing of the buck of defense to the United States by the British as well as by the Israelis. American foreign policy of intervention everywhere serves well only one major purpose, that of maintaining full employment through inflation and maximum spending by our government.
Expert lawyering or advocacy with words for any one side whether for a nation in the world contest or for a pressure group or movement, domestically, will not contribute to peace or better relations and stability. Internationalism, universalism and one worldism are all unrealistic and dangerous concepts or tools of thought. American universalism or internationalism is phony.
We [can] respect any sincere and consistent believer in and crusader for his particular cult of one worldism or universalism, be it religious, political or otherwise, ideologically or operationally, provided he does not propose to put over his one world order by the sword, as did the Christian Crusaders of yore and so many other brands of historical crackpots, or religious fanatics.
But to have American southerners—now as in the past, against racial integration or assimilation—preach internationalism, one worldism, the world rule of one law, and a mushy sort of universalism, well, that really nauseates any rational person.
The same goes for the leaders and voices of organized labor, all pro- fessing the deepest attachment to the values and norms of a one world internationalism or universalism, but all opposed to lowering our immi- gration barriers so as to allow our labor market to be flooded with millions of cheap workers from the colored world.
The organized labor internationalist is a phony just like the southern internationalist and one worlder who is against integration but who would have U.S. forces stationed all over the planet to enforce the world rule of law, while he is now flouting or denying the decision of our Supreme Court on integration.
When the liberals and internationalists were crusading for our entry into an anti-Nazi war, were they any less extremists than are the now so- called conservatives who are preaching anti-communism? The Revisionists are not and never were extremists. The extremist label should usually be applied to those in the war party.
The most extreme factor now operative and to be feared is war, including preparations for war.
War has progressively been becoming a more extreme factor since the middle of the 19th Century. War rolled the national debt up from $43 billion in 1940 to $279 billion in 1945. The Cold War has rolled it up to over $300 billion at present.
Can the extremism of war be successfully met with moderation? Must one extremism always be met with another extremism?
[John E] Kennedy seems to be more of a moderate than an extremist. Unfortunately, extremism, that is to say, some form or type of extremism usually has more mass appeal than a course of moderation. Kennedy is coming under considerable fire or criticism because he is not talking or acting tough enough for the taste of most people. Most people still do not accurately or rationally evaluate the new war factors.
[This was written on June 7, 1963, just less than six months before John F. Kennedy was killed in Dallas. In fact, Dennis’ commentary fore- shadowed, in many respects, the subsequent widespread belief that JFK was indeed assassinated precisely because of his refusal to adopt the « tough » line of the Zionists and their Cold Warrior allies who today make up the ruling « neo-conservative » clique at the highest levels of the American government. —MICHAEL COLLINS PIPER.]
Most of the current criticism of Kennedy is based on his failure to make achievements for the United States or to display what the masses of our people like to think of as world leadership.
The Boobus Americanus or the American hick cannot understand why his country, the winner of World War II, should not now be the world leader and in control of the world situation.
Obviously, neither President Kennedy nor anyone of his spokesmen can tell the Boobus Americanus that America did not win World War II but that Russia and communism, only, thanks to American aid, won the war. And this is something that neither the American conservatives, so-called, nor the American liberals, so-called, are disposed to say openly or publicly. The conservatives talk tough against the foreign devil and against more government at home. This is paradoxical and irrational.
What could be more absurd than the demand of the American con- servative for a tougher policy against Communist Russia and China along with less government intervention, control and taxation at home?
What could be more paradoxical than being for war and against socialism? The great weakness of most American conservatives and lib- erals is their failure or inability to take an operational view of big modern war. They just cannot get it through their thick heads that big modern war has to be socialistic.
The permanent cold war now being carried on must downgrade the white world and upgrade the colored world, something our dumb Southerners [who supported] Woodrow Wilson’s war to make the world safe for democracy never saw. DeGaulle sees this and wants to end the futile French war in North Africa.
[In fact, in 1962 DeGaulle surrendered French control of Algeria— much to the dismay of Israel—and a major new Arab republic was born. During the same period DeGaulle began severing his long-time alliance with Israel and his support for Israel’s nuclear weapons programs, this at precisely the same time John F. Kennedy was adamantly protesting Israel’s drive for nuclear weapons. —MICHAEL COLLINS PIPER.]
The day of profitable exploitation by the white man of Africa or Asia is now over. From here on, profitable cooperation only is a rational and practical objective.
The idea or ideal of world unity has for over a half century been promoted by our subsidized foundations. It was never supported by history or current events. Today it is more discredited than ever.
The American people were sold two world wars on a general theory which was most irrational and contrary to the logic of past history and which has been continuously and conclusively proved fallacious by events since 1917.
According to this general theory, a war to end war and the world rule of law could enforce peace with justice. As we have so often repeated, the craziest phrase or idea of the 20th century was that of a war to end war. Anyone who thought a war could end war should have been sent to a mental hospital for psychiatric analysis and treatment.
One of the great insanities of America in the 20th century has been prohibitionism: Prohibit alcoholic drinking, prohibit war. If it is sin, it has to be stopped or prohibited.
The big U.S. idea: The world must be unified by force—ours or theirs. This idea is factually and logically all wrong. But is now accepted as a 100 percent American idea. If you want to be a conformist and not a non- conformist, a dissenter or a subversive, security risk, you must subscribe to this wrong idea.
The generation that started reading Mahan on sea power, Kipling on the White Man’s Burden and the lesser breeds without the law, and numerous others on America’s and Britain’s manifest destiny, also began getting subsidies for embracing these ideas.
The subsidies came from British millionaires like Cecil Rhodes and Andrew Carnegie and from American millionaires like John D. Rockefeller. Technological trends and scientific progress were seen to support this « we-or-they-must-rule-the-world » ideology. World-Unification-by-Force cultists who are against sharing are phonies. These internationalists have a great time denouncing nationalism as selfish, predatory and generally immoral. They are even more violent in their attacks on certain extreme exponents of racism, that is, of a racism other than their own. But they are just as guilty as those whom they attack when it comes to sharing or to setting up a world order based on equality of opportunity and access.
We are prepared to join with fellow Americans in the defense of this country against any invasion by foreigners in search of living space.
But we are indisposed to fight or have Americans fight to protect any other area of people from similar wars or attacks. For such wars, our advice is that we should keep out of them, try to keep them localized and limited, try to avert or to end them by the use of good offices and negotiation with both sides.
We want no part of wars to liberate other peoples. Let them liberate themselves.
We want no part of wars to defend the status quo in other areas.
Government intervention in all phases of life on the home front has been on the rise since World War I. The Negroes on the warpath in the South are exploiting this trend. They are riding the wave of the future, really started by World War I and greatly accelerated by World War II.
The Southerners who are now fighting desperately the rising tide of color were all for the United States getting into World Wars I and II to make the world safe for democracy. They lacked the imagination or intel- ligence to foresee the consequences of the crusades the United States embarked upon.
[General Douglas MacArthur said:] « Global war has become a Frankenstein, to destroy both sides. No longer is it a weapon of adven- ture—the short cut to international power. If you lose, you are annihilated. If you win, you stand only to lose. No longer does it possess even the chance of the winner of a duel. It contains now only the germs of double suicide. »
The MacArthur approach to war is not pacifist but operationalist, the line we have taken for over three decades.
The dynamics of hate and fear have run the West in two wars.To get America into two world wars, it was necessary to mobilize and utilize the dynamics of hate and fear.
These factors, of course, were always present and operative in the nationalistic wars of the two centuries and a half preceding the 20th century and following the era of the religious wars. But these factors were never, during the two centuries and a half from 1648 to 1900, as important as they have been in the western world during the 20th century. Democracy only came to maturity at the end of the 19th century.
Whipping up mass hate and fear is the easiest and surest way for a political leader in the western world to come to power and to wield power. It is now the approved way to get a country into a war or to keep it in a state of permanent war such as we are in right now.
The west in the 20th century taught Afro-Asians hate, fear. Now they hate and fear white rule—not communism. They never knew White Russian colonialism.
The strength of [Egyptian Pan-Arab leader Gamal] Nasser today is that he has the rising tide of anti-colonialism or of hate and fear of the white intruders in Africa and Asia to ride.
No political leader in Africa or Asia can have a better asset than to be disliked or denounced by us Americans. That we are « agin » communism is communism’s greatest asset in Africa and Asia. The fact we are « for » a local ruler or regime in Africa or Asia is the worst liability for that ruler or regime.
The world minority of whites should have the brains to understand that exploiting or trying to exploit and use the dynamics of hate and fear never was and never will be good business for a privileged « have » minority. The dynamics of hate and fear can, in the long run, only prove fatal for the minority. The white West, or the haves, are the minority.
Permanent Mideast crisis has great headline news value for policy. How could our power elite in Washington get from 40 to 50 billion dollars a year for defense spending and foreign aid if they did not have war-crisis headlines from the Mideast and other areas in our papers most of the time? It is wonderful having a « colored world Hitler » who is nowhere near so dangerous or powerful as was Adolf.
The end result is certain. Time, numbers and space are with the colored world.They are with the Muslim nationalists and against the Israeli nationalists. What the colored world has lacked has been unity and dynamism for war on the whites.
Well, Israel is contributing to the unification and activation of the colored world for war against the colonial and other outsiders.
The [Russians] can’t control but will aid and encourage Afrasians versus the U.S.-Israel. Our patriots and fanatical « antis » who want to bear the White Man’s Burden over Asia and Africa now that the Europeans are being driven out are naive to suppose that Moscow controls or directs every trouble-making power factor or behavior pattern now giving Uncle Sam, the UN, the western colonial powers or Israel a headache. That is nonsense. It is one thing to aid and encourage a trouble maker and to profit from his operations. It is another to control or direct him.
American, western—and, apparently, recent Israeli policy and action— have been proceeding on the irrational premise that the col-oreds only respect force, wherefore, their white opponents have only to mobilize enough force against the coloreds.What makes this basic premise about force and the coloreds so asinine is simple arithmetic.
The white colonial powers and the Israelis, certainly, can never achieve ultimate and decisive force superiority over the colored world and the vast areas it populates. The western or white world, however, if it were guided by operational rationalism and calculation instead of mystical legalism, moralism and traditionalism, could easily formulate and work out propositions or deals with the colored world mutually advantageous to both or to all concerned. This is our « constructive » word.
Only a return to neutrality, as counseled in Washington’s Farewell Address, could really ensure against our government starting and fighting a third world war against overwhelming numerical odds. Only the substitution of diplomacy for trying to play God or world policeman can provide an operationally practical alternative to total all-out war, if some day, some wild man, somewhere goes too far.
Only rational operationalism and the logic of enlightened national self- interest instead of obeying the imperatives of legalistic, moralistic and traditionalistic absolutes can avert World War III and with it, possibly, the extermination of most of the human race.
As war in the Mideast is stepped up, the U.S. is going to have to send hundreds of thousands, and, eventually, possibly, millions of American soldiers into that area to protect the oil wells and the thousands-of-miles- long pipelines carrying oil to the Mediterranean for export to the Europeans who must depend on it. The American people, of course, will not be told that American troops must be sent to the Mideast to protect the oil stakes.They will be told American intervention in that area is necessary to defend America by stopping communist aggression.
[Although, of course, Dennis wrote this in 1955—at the height of the Cold War—his remarks remain valid. Today, the « communist » enemy has been replaced by the « Islamo-Fascist » enemy and by « Middle East dictators with weapons of mass destruction. »—MICHAEL COLLINS PIPER.]
If the colored world nationalist leaders can force the U.S. to deploy in perpetuity millions of American soldiers over the colored world to stop communist sin [or, in today’s paradigm, « Islamo-Fascist » sin— MICHAEL COLLINS PIPER], what have those leaders to worry about? The more natives American or foreign troops kill, the better for the long run interests of native nationalisms now on the warpath against outsiders. How can the U.S. ever hope to pressure peoples living so near the margin of bare subsistence? The pressure will be only on the American taxpayers and conscripts for the wars of perpetual foreign intervention with no loot pay-off.
Hollywood couldn’t have picked a more fitting war stage than Palestine. In this century we have gone forward to nuclear war and back- ward to holy war. This is the century of religious wars.
For the opening of the third great religious war of one lifetime, no area could be more appropriate than the Holy Land, the birth place of two, if not of three, of the world’s truly great religions, Judaism, Christianity and Islam.
The staging and casting are superb and logical. Zion is the subject of Torah, Prophets, Psalms, Lamentations and many of the great classics of history like those of Joseph and Maimonides. It is the chosen land of the chosen people. It is under the special personal care of God, or rather, Yahweh, the God of Israel.
Now Uncle Sam has taken over. Of course, Allah is in the other camp, that of the Arabs. Yahweh helped the children of Israel take over the Promised Land more than once in the past four thousand years. But he never stopped their several expulsions and dispersions. This is what Uncle Sam must do in the future.
For reasons which we, like the theologians, are unable to give, Yahweh allowed the Chosen People to be driven out of the Chosen Land more than once. But Uncle Sam cannot permit anything like that to happen to the new Israel.
Uncle Sam is no defeatist. He does not put up with war, sin or aggression. He fights wars to end war. He is a perfectionist.
The believers in the great religions with a Messianic Promise used to wait and pray for the coming of the Messiah and the dawn of the Millennium. Americans, however, today must not just wait and pray for the Millennium; they must fare forth and fight for it—all over the planet. This is the new internationalism.
God never stopped war or evil in all history as Uncle Sam now must do. We do know Uncle Sam is committed to not allowing war or aggression to happen without getting in to stop war. He cannot allow the Chosen People to be driven out of Israel as they were, more than once, in the past. How fitting to have World War III start in the Holy Land.
What will be the nature, the extent, the duration and the end results of America’s third war in one lifetime to end war and to stop evil?
Well, it is going to be interesting to watch the American casualties pile up in the Mideast as Uncle Sam tries to stop what Yahweh did not stop in the distant past. And it is going to be even more interesting to follow American mass reactions to the killed and wounded notices from the Crusade in the Holy Land.
America’s contribution to religious war in the 20th century [was] mono-diabolism [i.e. the designation of a single « devil » enemy]. Now that Uncle Sam has taken over and is trying to do a job Yahweh never did, Uncle Sam can never admit any imputation of sin or evil against one of his allies or proteges.
One « ism » has to get security clearance. The other has to be branded as subversive. It won’t be long now until Judaism and Islam will be up for security rating in the permanent war. [Dennis clearly saw that— ultimately—in the United States, Judaism would be given security clear- ance. Not so with Islam. Dennis saw it coming.—MICHAEL COLLINS PIPER.]
Nowadays, when Uncle Sam gets into a war, he resolves quite simply and decisively the whole issue of sin or as to who and what are good or right and who and what are evil and wrong. Sin is always and only on the side of the enemy. This was settled by Nuremberg and other war crimes trials.There is just one devil that is against Uncle Sam or not with him. [And George W. Bush did say it: « Either you are with us or you are with the terrorists. »—MICHAEL COLLINS PIPER.]
The build-up of World War III goes on in the Mideast over Israel, oil, western colonialisms v. colored world nationalisms and the rationalization that the contest is one between the free world and communism. Israel and our western, colonial powers are our bulwark against communism and the colored world. This pattern is what Sir Norman Angell called in the April 15 (1956) London Times: « The Suicide of the West. »
In the 20th century religious war pattern of the suicide of the West, the West is crusading, inflating and « technologizing » itself to death.
It is ending itself trying to end war.
It is preparing with nuclear fission weapons to render the world uninhabitable by way of trying to make the world safe for democracy. The leitmotif is the idea that foreign sin and devils cannot be lived with but must be wiped out.
Well, if man’s know-how cannot end war or sin, it can now end the human race. We now have an infinite potential for annihilation. How long can our idealists hold in check their impulse to do good by pulling the global annihilation trigger?
If only we did not have nuclear fission and so much know-how, the current wave of madness might result in nothing worse than the bloody futilities of the Crusades or the religious wars of the Sixteenth and Seventeenth Centuries.
The German ex-Nazi military men, technicians and capitalists are quietly moving [into the Arab world] to cooperate and assimilate. If this does not make monkeys of people in America and Britain who fell for World War II propaganda about German « racism, » we don’t know what could! [It is interesting that Dennis also commented elsewhere that Hitler was « not rational enough » to have allied with the Arab world, for example, « having too high an opinion of the British and the white race »—a comment that will astound those who perceived Dennis as an unabashed admirer of Hitler.—MICHAEL COLLINS PIPER.]
If the Germans now gang up with [Russia] and the colored world anti- white nationalists, whom will the British and the French find to sign up for their third Holy war?
Is the answer: « Just the U.S. and Israel? » If it is, the cards will be heav- ily stacked against the third Anglo-American crusade.
[Dennis did not know at that point that France would break its alliance with Israel or that, in the period prior to the the second U.S. war against Iraq, France would emerge as an ally with Germany and Russia against the United States and Britain and Israel. As we shall see, Dennis also noted Russia’s capacity to exploit Third World tensions with the United States and, likewise, foreshadowed Russia’s defeat after its invasion of Muslim Afghanistan. —MICHAEL COLLINS PIPER.]
Russia has 21 million Muslims or over ten percent of its population, mostly concentrated in areas from which Russia gets most of its oil. The idea that Russian communists can convert to communism and control from Moscow the 200 million natives of Africa and the thirteen or fourteen hundred millions of Asia seems to us too silly to merit serious con- sideration. But Russia, as the only great power besides the U.S., can profit from the revolt of the colored world against the western powers.
The new religious war rationalization is to call it law enforcement. Attempts at an unattainable world rule of one law insure permanent reli- gious war, inflation, and socialism. About the only subject of general agreement among the shapers of American opinion and policy today, so far as war and power politics—inter- or intra-national—are concerned, is that there must be no return to neutralism.
Most of the rightists, criticizing the Supreme Court’s desegregation decision and the use of federal armed force to enforce it, are, inconsistently and amusingly enough, all for American world leadership, American intervention, and American liberation by force of the people enslaved by the red devils of the Kremlin.
The Kremlin Kommunist Kommissars are now making out their former peerless leader and our noble war ally Stalin to have been a devil, a monster and guilty of all sorts of crimes or sin. As to Stalin, the Kremlin communists are following the line of the American anti-communists.The American anti-communists are following the Kremlin communist line.
This is really funny. But it is significant. The point being proved is that our allies under Stalin’s successful and victorious leadership, in partnership with us, were just as big and just as bad devils as the Nazis and the Fascists. Stalin’s sins were operational inevitables of communism. The biggest crime of the 20th century may turn out to be the eventual extinction of the human race by nuclear radiation in a war fought with the weapons which we, peace-loving, good Americans are now having our scientists perfect. We are developing these weapons to end war, communism and sin on this planet and thereby usher in the Millennium.