The Muslims-are-all-bad meme fuels terror

The Muslims-are-all-bad meme fuels terror

by Don Hank

Watch ye, stand fast in the faith, quit you like men, be strong.  1 Corinthians 16:13

I keep getting emails praising this or that Islam “expert” who rages against Islam per se and holds up Israel as a shining light in a world of darkness (see below). But these experts don’t mean Israel, they mean the war hawk Likud party which seeks to invade Iran to enlarge its elbow room, using false narratives of the “threat” posed by Tehran. Yet Likud does not equal Israel and for that matter, the Israel of today is not the Israel of antiquity that God blessed. God banished those Israelites from their land when they turned their backs on Him. Pray tell, in view of the fact that only a fraction of Israelis believe in the God of Abraham, when have they turned godly again? A while back I asked a “Zionist Christian” friend that question and never heard back from him.

Unfortunately, though, the vast majority of these people who “enlighten” us about Islam make no distinction between Sunni and Shia, and yet such distinction is one of the vital facts any real expert would know and teach. The reason for this is political. Every single ISIS member is SUNNI and belongs to the most violent and intolerant religious sect in the world, the SUNNI sect of Wahhabism, a product of the Saudi dictatorship to which Washington bows. Not just the Democrats. ALL of Washington.

EVERY single Al-Qaeda member, including Osama bin Laden, is also a SUNNI Wahhabist, and so is EVERY single Taliban member.

BTW, this is not to say that all Sunnis are dangerous or potentially so. Consider that Sunni-majority Indonesia has the highest Muslim population of any country, and yet we almost never hear of terror acts committed by Indonesians against Westerners (though Shia-Sunni rifts are common), and yet, most of them are Sunni. This is because modernist Islam (a moderate Islam heavily influenced by Islamic thinkers influenced in turn by the West) predominates there, where the government is generally secularist – just as the governments of Assad, Saddam Hussein and Ghadaffi are or were secularist, and terrorists, for example, are or were not tolerated. It is, of course, no coincidence that the West has opposed these secularists, paying obeisance to the Saudis and their zeal to spread Islam by the sword. No surprise. But no excuse either.

Despite the relative moderation of the Shiites compared to the Sunnis in the Middle East, as described above, for purely political reasons, it is de rigueur to claim that Shiite IRAN is the biggest terror supporter in the world.

To add to the utter absurdity of the official Western narrative, Iran is fighting ISIS in Syria. Of course, these same “enlighteners” regarding Islam never dare mention that Assad, the man we are supposed to hate, is also a Shiite, of the Alawite sect, or that the Alawites are by far the most tolerant and non-violent of all Muslims and are hated by the Saudis for it. The Western call to oust Assad is just a genuflection toward the tyrannical Saudis with whom the US is joined at the hip for reasons discussed in part here and here.

Anyone who tries to create the impression that Iran is a threat to civilization is simply caving to the Neocons who gave the world near-total chaos in the Middle East. No matter what the consequences, this myth must be broken. Nothing is more important. If anyone tries to sell you this swill, ask them to name ONE terror attack in Europe or the US that was perpetrated by Iranians or Hezbollah.

The notion that ALL MUSLIMS are evil and dangerous in fact plays into the narrative of the Neocons, who use this simplistic notion of a monolithic, heterogeneous Islam to wage war strictly against the SHIITES, precisely the branch of Islam that is fighting ISIS. After all, if All Muslims are equally dangerous and evil, then we have a mandate to destroy Iran and Assad as well, and that is exactly what they want you to believe. We often hear from our kindly, enlightened Christian conservative friends: Kill them all and let God sort them out.

But the fact is, NEVER in a million years would the world be able to rid itself of the Saudi-supported ISIS if no one ever challenged the ALL-MUSLIMS-ARE-EVIL myth. Because without the “evil” Iranians and the “evil” Assad, Syria would still be in the grip of ISIS, which, may I remind the reader, would not be there had it not been for wholehearted Western support for the Arab Spring and subsequent arms and support supplied to the “moderates” by US war enthusiasts. Needless to say, all of the moderates are Sunni Wahhabists.

Part of this challenge is NEVER to give credence to those who support the anti-Iran myths. Unfortunately, the myth is supported by BOTH sides of the aisle in Washington and by many intellectually lazy Americans, both conservative and liberal, who are waiting patiently under the table for the Washington Establishment to someday throw them a few scraps as long as they don’t meddle in the State Department’s meddling. ONLY Russia challenges this myth and fights alongside the Shiites in their war against the SUNNI terror supported clandestinely by the US and EU governments.

Ironically, US foreign policy today is in the hands of people who rail against political correctness, but these are precisely the ones who by their actions support the SUNNI radical Saudi Arabia while making the absolutely false and dangerous claim that IRAN is the biggest terror supporter. (So please, put aside your cheerleading role and don your watchdog hat).

Ask yourself: Are you REALLY politically incorrect or is your mind being controlled by a gigantic hoax even as you cheer on the ringleaders?

 

 

Related

http://laiglesforum.com/neocons-isis-is-friend-iran-is-enemy/3634.htm

http://laiglesforum.com/the-framing-of-iran-by-the-godless/3443.htm

http://laiglesforum.com/stop-iran-how-about-stopping-the-saudis/3436.htm

 

What you “know” about Aleppo is not true

Aleppo war hypocrisy uncovered

translation and commentary by Don Hank

Featured below is my translation of an article on the site of Movimento 5 Stelle (m5s), an increasingly popular anti-Establishment party which, if it comes to power in the vacuum created by Prime Minister Renzi’s resignation, is likely to take Italy out of the euro. Unlike the UK, whose leaders tenaciously still cling to the EU following the Brexit, Italy’s exit from the euro could be more brusque and throw the EU into a tailspin. Of the major anti-elite parties in the EU core countries, m5s is the boldest, most astute and most brutally honest in its critical analysis of western military and foreign policy. The article below should be book-marked for reference because it lists casualty estimates for the “good” war in Mosul and the “bad” war in Aleppo and shows that the numbers of civilians killed in US-waged wars and the Israeli conflicts with Palestine are extremely high, making Western criticism of Russia and the Syrian government look hypocritical. The article does not list the casualties in Aleppo simply because we hear or read about these every day thanks to the media dutiful reporting them in a tone clearly condemnatory of Russia (and Assad), as if only Russian wars entailed collateral damage.  This article sets the record straight, highlighting the rank hypocrisy of the US and allies.

I took the trouble to investigate independently the casualty statistics listed by Fulvio Scaglione in his article below. Here are links to 3 months of UN figures cited:

http://www.iraqinews.com/features/unami-announces-death-toll-iraq-september/

http://reliefweb.int/report/iraq/un-casualty-figures-iraq-month-october-2016-enar

http://reliefweb.int/report/iraq/un-casualty-figures-iraq-month-october-2016-enar

Not all of the deaths can be attributed directly to US intervention. However, ISIS and its opponents killed a very large number of people as a result of the Obama administration’s refusal to prevent ISIS from entering the towns and cities. He did, however, provide arms to “moderate” terrorists in Syria.

While many conservatives take a dim view of the UN, this organization is the only one providing data of t his kind. Without the UN, the world would be reliant mostly on biased data from outlets loyal to the US government that caused  much of the suffering.

Sadly, from my personal association with prominent and less prominent Brexit activists I have seen that only a minority of them understand that declaring their independence from the EU is only half the battle. They seem unaware that the real enemies are the US and NATO, which constantly beat the war drums against Russia and Assad, despite their own illegal and failed invasions in the Middle East, Ukraine and Kosovo, which leave the world infinitely less safe than before their interventions.

I receive alerts from the main anti-EU parties and after reading their literature, for years in some cases, I would rank them as follows in terms of their grasp of the geopolitical reality, particularly regarding US-waged wars. From most aware to least aware, they are:

Movimento 5 Stelle (m5s) (founded by Beppe Grillo. they will field a candidate for prime minister)

Front National  (founded by Marine LePen, who is eyeing a run for president of France)

Partij voor de Vrijhijd /Freedom Party (founded by Geert Wilders, who is eying a run for prime minister of Holland)

I am not including UKIP (UK Independent Party) in this list because Brits are split on their feelings toward the Atlanticist Establishment; while UKIP was instrumental in bringing about the exit of the UK from the EU, they were only one of several influential groups in that endeavor.   I would put Nigel Farage personally high on the list, because he is in line with Donald Trump – willing to deal with, rather than demonize, the Russians and Syrians. He has in fact traveled to the US to endorse Trump. However, the Brexit groups are divided with regard to remaining in NATO. Some think NATO is necessary for “defence,” despite the fact that all of NATO’s actions in recent years have been offensive and have violated international law regarding sovereignty of states. I also am not including the AfD because there is, at this point, virtually no chance that Germany will exit the EU any time soon.

 

http://www.beppegrillo.it/2016/12/la_guerra_di_aleppo_non_e_solo_come_ve_la_raccontano.html

What they’re not telling you about the war in Aleppo

Movimento 5 Stelle /5 Star Movement   The blog of the stars

by Fulvio Scaglione for TPI

The battle of Aleppo, with the bloodshed of recent days and the terrible years that preceded them, marked among other things the collapse of the Western information system , which is almost indistinguishable from partisan propaganda at this point. Everything in the Western narrative about Aleppo smacks of fraud and deceit. Since the publication of unfiltered and unverified data provided by the Syrian Observatory for Human Rights, founded and headed by an adversary of Bashar al-Assad and maintained by the British government, the word “siege” has been applied liberally for Aleppo but only in recent months, and never in the over three years that the city was attacked from three sides by rebels and jihadis, who came to occupy 60 percent of the urban territory.

But in a way, these are small details. The real issue is the refusal to confront a reality which can be summarized as: what happened in Aleppo in recent weeks is not at all exceptional. On the contrary, it is the norm of contemporary war. Don’t believe us? Then let’s have a look around. Take Mosul, the largest Iraqi city, which has been occupied by ISIS for two and a half years.

In mid-October the offensive to free it from the jihadists got underway (finally). Great fanfare, triumphant tones, exultation for civilians who “were being freed” from areas previously under the control of militants (while civilians in Aleppo who come from the neighborhoods dominated by al-Nusra Front, are not liberated but rather “escape”). Now, two months later, everything has come to a standstill and no one is talking about liberating Mosul. Not only that, the offensive by Americans, Kurds and Iraqis has been halted to such an extent that ISIS has removed 4-5 thousand fighters from the Iraqi front and sent them to retake Palmyra in Syria. Why?

The answer is very simple. The two and a half years of grueling bombing campaign gave ISIS plenty of time to organize the defenses in the city. The roads were mined or boarded up or replaced by galleries known only to the militia fighters. Some buildings were demolished to clear lines of fire; elsewhere walls were built to block the lines of fire and passage of the attackers. Finally, thousands of civilians were trapped to be used as human shields.

To be “liberated” Mosul will have to become another Aleppo: the bombings, civilian casualties, children torn apart by the strikes, and so on. There is an alternative, namely, house to house combat with hundreds and hundreds of dead Iraqis and Kurds — which has already been going on, even if military operations are almost at a standstill.

The UN Mission for assistance to Iraq (UNAMI), directed by Jan Kubis, former Foreign Minister of Slovakia (2006-2009), has made available mind-boggling data on the number of Iraqi deaths, civilian and other, of the last few months. In September, ie before the offensive on Mosul, the number of Iraqi civilians killed was 609 (951 injured); the number rose to 1,120 (with 1,005 injured) in October and to 926 (930 injured) in November.

As for the military and other combatants, the figures are: 394 killed (208 injured) in September, 672 killed (353 injured) in October, 1959 killed (and 450 injured) in November. Result? Everything blocked, meaning further suffering for imprisoned civilians in Mosul and more time for ISIS to continue building up.

Of course, nouveaux philosophes [a group similar to the Neocons in the US—Don Hank] and other clowns can harp on atrocities and human rights violations in Aleppo. But they are nothing but hypocrites. In 2004, the US Army fought two battles to “liberate” the Iraqi city of Fallujah, in fact occupied by the militants of al-Qaeda, the forerunners of the militants of al-Nusra, which play such an important role in the battle of Aleppo.

According to the independent NGO Iraq Body Count, between 572 and 616 civilians died in the first battle (April 2004); between 581 and 670 died in the second (November 2004) battle. The Americans used phosphorus arms and apparently depleted uranium. Have you ever heard of any new philosophers rending their garments over this? Do you recall Corriere de Sera [an establishment newspaper–Don] ever mentioning “slaughterhouse” in headlines about Fallujah, as it did referring to Aleppo?

 

And what about Gaza? According to the most conservative data, which are those published by the Jerusalem Center for Public Affairs, only 45 percent of the 2,100 Palestinians killed in the Gaza Strip during the 2014 war were real civilians and non-combatants. That’s still 945 unarmed people killed in two months of clashes.

Thus it was the very countries that now cry foul over the Aleppo operations, that block motions censure Israel at the UN.  And isn’t Gaza a perfect copy of the eastern districts of Aleppo, attacked with bombs by the Russians and by Assad’s Syrians?

And yet UNICEF has informed us that in the first six months of 2016, Afghanistan had a record number of civilian casualties: 1,601 dead and 3,565 wounded. The worst half-year since the anti-Taliban invasion in 2001. According to UN estimates, 60 percent of Afghan civilians are vulnerable to attack by the Taliban and other insurgent groups and criminals.

But 40 percent of 1,601 deaths is still 640 deaths, or 640 innocent Afghans killed in six months (more than 3 per day) by troops arriving from our countries, that is, by those who are supposed to be protecting and “liberating” them. But everyone is silent; these dead do not deserve the indignation reserved for the dead of eastern  Aleppo.

Thus the war of our times is utterly disgusting. Those who pretend to believe that in Chechnya and Aleppo different things were done than elsewhere, for example in Fallujah or Gaza, are quite simply lying. All of today’s wars are fought on the backs of civilians. All of them.

And in all wars, the armed men, with or without uniforms, are, at the most, collateral victims. Politicians, military people and terrorists know this quite well. So the real issue is to avoid wars as much as possible, not to pretend that there are good wars and bad wars.

(translation from the Italian by Don Hank)

 

Russia refuses to sell tanks to Iran

Russia refuses to sell tanks to Iran

 

by Don Hank

Russia is constantly accused in the West of only pursuing its own selfish interests in the world, particularly in the Middle East. However, if that were true, then, particularly now that US-imposed sanctions are hurting them economically, one would expect them to sell arms to any country that asks for them. Russia is, however, refusing to sell its sophisticated T-90 tank to Iran.

If you understand what I call the Putin Principle, as described here, you will easily grasp what is motivating him.

According to TASS, President Vladimir Putin is trying to comply with international treaties, which at this time ban the sale of tanks to Iran. Iran and Russia are not on the best of terms right now because Iran thinks Russia is too cozy with the West. For example, Iran does not want Russia to deal with Israel, but of course, Russia does what is best for Russia (which is also what is best for the US people, but the Neocons, as defined here, are not We the People, quite the opposite). Putin is a friend of Israel. Some Israeli leaders have said he is the best friend Israel has. That may be true.

There is contention in the Kremlin right now because the hardliners in the Russian military want direct military confrontation with the West. Putin wants peace with all sides but is also looking out for the security and safety of the Russian speakers in Ukraine and the minorities, notably Orthodox Christians, in Syria. At this point in time, it is fair to say that Putin is the de facto mediator between all world factions. In accordance with the Putin Principle, he does not take sides (at least not in the obtuse manner of Washington), just insists on respect for international law and the sovereignty of nations  –  not some silly “Russian exceptionalism” or the like (though a case could be made for the existence of such).

If the West has the upper hand, there will be constant senseless wars everywhere. If Putin’s Russia imposes its will, there will be peace between the 2 main axes, ie,

Israel-US and allies (incl the Saudis and Turkey)-Europe, and

Russia-China and allies (such as Syria and Iran – though Iran is an unreliable ally).

If Putin is removed from power or retires at this point, the hardline faction in the Kremlin could take over and make life a living hell for the West. There could be a world war. Putin is the key to peace.

So what do our brilliant Neocons (like Hillary and most GOP “leaders”, for ex) do to promote peace and show their respect to the Russian leader?

Why antagonize Russia as much as possible, amassing NATO troops at the Russian border just as Hitler did prior to WW II and imposing sanctions intended to hurt Russia but which in fact hurt Europe more.

We need to understand clearly that there cannot be all-out war with Russia. That is a false concept entertained by all shallow Western foreign policy “experts.” There can only be all-out war with the China-Russia bloc, never with Russia alone. They will defend each other. Numerous joint exercises and military parades in conspicuous places are intended to demonstrate their solidarity and the “experts” snoozed through them all. In the 70s the elites thought that free trade with China would cause a split between the 2 nations (as outlined in my commentary “China, an unreliable tool of the New World Order”), which at the time the free trade deal was signed, were not on friendly terms.

Heavy-handed and childish US meddling has meanwhile united them, and has also made China extravagantly rich – unintended consequences of an irresponsible gamble.

For most of you, the following will be a rhetorical question:

Can the US defeat BOTH China and Russia?

For those who actually have contemplated this question seriously, here is something to chew on:

http://www.renewamerica.com/columns/hank/130726

Don Hank

Will Russia be first to unite the Middle East?

Will Russia be the first to bring Shiites and Sunnis together?

 

by Don Hank

 

Today’s situation in the Middle East is very confusing to the uninitiated because US policy is secretly based on a decivilizing and disordering strategy that, to survive, must masquerade as being beneficial to all and designed to bring peace and justice. A major challenge for deceitful policy makers. For example, Obama originally had decided not to send arms and troops to the Syrian “rebels,” but when he saw the Russians bombing rebel bases, he decided to send more troops and arms (perhaps to appease the Neocons or perhaps because he has become one), as reported here.

BTW, note that Israel has apparently done the same, as reported here.

A few months ago Ted Cruz addressed a group of Syrian Christians living in the US. Like many naive Americans, he assumed that the Middle East Jews and Christians share the same plight and therefore sympathize with each other. However, the Christian-killing terrorists in Syria have the moral support of many Israelis and the Israeli government because these terrorists are, for now, also opposed to Hezbollah and Iran, which the Israelis see as enemies. This complexity is overwhelming for most Westerners because the pertinent dots are never connected in our media.

The ingenuous Cruz was surprised at these Christians’ hostile response when before this crowd of Syrian Christians, he repeated the shibboleth “I stand with Israel,” indicating that, like nearly all US politicians, he hasn’t a clue as to Syrian sentiments and the reality there. (Ben Carson, unlike Trump, also wants to ratchet up the cold war).

To state this reality as simply as possible, the Shiites (the Iranian people and the Syrian government–supported by Russia) are perceived as enemies of Israel while the Sunnis (essentially the Saudis, Gulf states and Turkey), who hate the Shia, are perceived as allies.

This unintentionally pits US supporters of Syrian Christians against Israel in the sense that to support these Christians, one naturally supports Russia’s efforts to defeat ISIS and the rebels, but Israel perceives Russia as a threat because she is defeating their Sunni “allies” in ISIS. Thus, when Israelis hear Americans sympathizing with the Syrian Christians, many of them tend to get nervous. On the other hand, US Christians and others who mouth the slogan “I stand for Israel” make Syrians nervous because this suggests that the person who says this is seen as a threat to the Syrian Christians and other minorities.

Thus far, geopolitically illiterate Western politicians (the vast majority) and by far the majority of US analysts, seem to think that not only are Sunnis and Shia irreconcilable, but that in the outside chance they could be brought together, their newfound unity could threaten US interests.

Yet they also perceive perpetual war to be in the US interest, a proposition that is counterintuitive and morally untenable. I have tried to explain here how this absurd and dangerous idea came about and why it has been perpetuated for a half-century with almost no opposition in politics and media.

So how can both sides be brought together?

Putin is an unrivaled statesman who obviously wants to do unite these enemies of long standing. He recognizes that the US-aggravated rivalry between the Sunnis and Israel on the one hand and the Shia and Russia on the other is untenable in the long run and will lead to war. He is clearly trying to defuse the tension nurtured by the US. While attacking the Syrian terrorists who have the tacit support of Israel, he has shown Israel his support by meeting with and speaking with Netanyahu and by agreeing with the latter to involve Russia in the extraction of the Leviathan gas deposit, part of which is claimed by Israel. This tacitly implies several important things:

1—Russia accepts Israel’s existence as a nation

2—Russia agrees with Israel’s claim to its share of Leviathan even though Israel has stretched international law by extending its waters from 12 miles to 200 miles to include the relevant part of the deposit.

3—Russia will not allow encroachment on this deposit during its extraction and will protect any portions of the pipeline that cross Israeli territory.

It is a virtual military protection agreement for Israel. Further, none of this will come as a surprise for Russia watchers of the non-Neocon variety because Putin had visited Israel years ago and gave a press conference relating to this trip in which his respect for the Jews and the people of all faiths is reflected. This video of the conference best illustrates the fact that Putin is by his very disposition a true uniter of peoples and a man of good will.

It was only a matter of time before Israel’s tenuous support of the Sunni terrorists would be discovered and would therefore backfire mightily.

The US and Israel were playing with fire by cultivating Sunni Saudis and, by extension, the Saudis’ pets in ISIS,as their main allies (with the US all the while pretending to fight ISIS for cosmetic purposes). They had set a trap for themselves that has now been sprung by Russia.

Russia is now the only country in the world that intends to bring the Sunni world – and  its allies Israel and the US – and the Shia world – ie, the Iranian people and Syrian government – together as clearly suggested by this report showing that in September, Putin either spoke by phone or met with not only the Shia leaders of Iran and Syria but also their supposed arch enemies the leaders of the Sunni countries Palestine, Turkey, Saudi Arabia and Jordan, and most amazingly, Israel. This convergence of the Middle East in Moscow represented nothing short of an epoch making plate shift but went almost completely unreported in the West, a benighted region which still seeks answers solely in policies that divide the Middle East and make it more barbaric, supposedly to benefit US interests but in fact to no one’s benefit.

After years and years of relentless brainwashing, the idea of a relatively peaceful Middle East is now alien to Americans, most of whom would scoff at the idea.

Putin, however, understands the commonality of these seemingly divergent peoples (if only based on economic expediency) and his effort to unite all of their leaders is by far the most ingenious, monumental and momentous peace effort ever attempted in the Middle East. Yet no one, not even the brightest and best of geopolitical analysts, seems to have noticed. They are too busy taking sides in an effort to prop up a falling empire.

Some will say that my analysis is weighted in favor of our one-time enemy Russia. Yet what I have shown suggests a happier ending for the US than most would admit to.

Putin continues to refer to the US as a partner, and if only for economic reasons, he is deadly serious about this.

Putin knows that an economically failed US does not favor Russia or its Eurasian partners, all of whom are seeking the greatest prosperity for all, if for no other reason than to benefit from trade with us. After all, what is the percentage in trading with poor countries?

This came in since I wrote the above and it substantiates my commentary:

http://journal-neo.org/2015/11/12/saudi-russo-rapprochement-back-on-track/

 

The elites are doing an about face

 

by Don Hank   August 25, 2015

 

George Friedman, CEO of Stratfor, seems to be following the lead of other prominent Neocon elites. Recently, Kissinger and Soros both warned against taunting the Russian bear or escalating the Ukraine conflict. This was remarkable for them, because they had always generally supported, at least by their actions and words, the Wolfowitz doctrine of encircling Russia, and indeed, Soros even admitted that one of his foundations had aided in the Maidan coup, as I pointed out here.

Now comes George Friedman and joins them in backtracking, reluctantly admitting here that maybe attacking the Russian ally Iran was never such a brilliant idea. He says the problem with this idea is that the plan might fail and thereby strengthen the Iranian position while weakening Israel’s position. No kidding.

I wrote to George via his Stratfor site and asked why no one ever mentions Daniel Greenfield’s famous speech on the MAD (Mutually Assured Destruction) principle, which that author skillfully demonstrates would effectively prevent a nuclear power (he doesn’t explicitly mention Iran) from attacking another. Israel is known to possess a nuclear arsenal.

I had mentioned Greenfield’s comments on MAD here in the context of the rush to war against Iran – which, nota bene, even the Israeli military leaders knew to be an unnecessarily risky idea.

So when you say “I stand with Israel,” are you saying you stand with these wise military leaders who oppose war with Iran or with the minority who want to take that needless risk?

See the problem with that slogan?

Below is my response to George:

 

Thank you for this report.

I find it intriguing that no commentator ever mentions, in the context of Israel vs Iran, Daniel Greenfield’s speech on the MAD principle, which prevents nuclear powers from attacking each other. The Israeli government is aware of Greenfield’s writings and certainly, many have read this speech and know this theory makes common sense. Since it is known that Israel and the US are nuclear powers and that neither would sit back and let Iran attack Israel, Iran, in the real world, would never nuke Israel. Further, any nuclear explosion in Israel would kill and harm millions of Palestinians and other Arab neighbors. The whole world would turn against Iran and that would end Iran’s ability to ever trade with any country again. It would, in a word, be suicide. In other words, the war hawks in Israel are directing an inordinate and unjustified amount of time and energy at preventing an impossibility.

It is obvious to me that the only reason Israeli war hawks keep beating the drums in Iran’s direction is that they want to stay on the good side of the Saudis, who they perceive as having the power to crush them via their protégés like ISIS.

Why not address this side of the story some time? It would not hurt your credibility and would almost certainly boost your readership.

END OF LETTER

 

When you see the elites distancing themselves from their past strongly held positions, it’s not because they had a change of heart or “saw the light.” It’s because an external force or forces have made it impossible to sustain those positions and they woke up to this reality.

Despite all the setbacks that Eurasia (mostly Russia and China) have suffered (such as the recent collapse of the Chinese stock market), this region has so far avoided, for the most part, the extravagance of Western Keynesianism – unbridled money printing, borrowing more than they can ever pay down or back to pay for reckless spending – and despite the “socialist” tag, neither of them spends, as a percentage of GDP, even a fraction of what Western “developed” countries spend on welfare or social programs. The Neocons haven’t a leg to stand on, and now the upper echelons aren’t in fact standing.

Further, Eurasia has managed to demonstrate the vast potential of its economic power and prestige, for example, via the new investment bank, the AIIB, to most of our “allies,” over 50 of which became founding members, as I pointed out here.

On top of that, Russia and China have been doing impressive joint military exercises lately, demonstrating not only that they possess the hardware to back down any opponent, but that they are a team. I am amused at analysts who discuss Russian military capability in great detail without ever mentioning that there is in fact no such thing as the “Russian” military. In today’s world, there is only a joint Russian-Chinese military that we must contend with – and get along with, like it or not. And while there are still US “allies,” most are only reluctant and leaning away from the constant wars made in USA.

I say all that to remind you of why the elites, like Soros, Kissinger and Friedman, are changing their tune. They simply have no choice. Reality is facing them like a brick wall, foiling their schemes of world dominance. I say this cautiously, but it would seem that Neoconservatism is dead for all practical purposes.

The elites, who had everything to lose, were the first to notice the tectonic plate shift in geopolitics.

The rest of America needs to pay attention.

 

The far-left connection to the Near-East rebellion

The far-left connection to the near-east rebellion

by Don Hank

It is now well known that Obama pals and Marxists Bill Ayers, Bernardine Dohrn and Jody Evans were instrumental in instigating the rebellion in Egypt:

Without this far-left intervention and the blessings of the White House there may well have been no rebellion in Egypt, and a stable (though imperfect) regime would still be in place, friendly to the US and tolerant of Israel.

Since then the rebellion has spread to Libya, and this too is arguably part of the Egyptian-Islamic / Western leftist-inspired revolution. Indeed there are reportedly at least 100 Egyptian operatives there, as well as US and British commandos.

A reader objected to my latest column critical of the Coalition’s Operation Odyssey Dawn, and this is my response to his objections.

You are free to support with heart, mind, propaganda and even finances whomever you please, but excuse me if I decline to be part of a rebellion instigated by the far left and strongly supported by friends of Islamic terror who deny Israel’s right to exist. Excuse me if I see gross hypocrisy in supporting an all-out attack on a Middle East dictator who has long been cooperative with the West, while turning a blind eye to more egregious dictatorships like China (where a Noble prize winner is now in jail for speaking his mind) and North Korea (where dissidents and their families are routinely jailed and it is a crime to own a radio with unlimited tuning).  You say I want to soft-pedal on Ghadaffi. Yet you are perfectly content to soft pedal on the undemocratic rogue regimes of China and North Korea that also kill their own people at times (eg, Tiananmen Square).

Where were the noble contenders for democracy when China was holding Liu Xiaobao? Oh, that’s right, democracy champion Barack Obama was fêting him at the White House. Further, China is one of the permanent members of the UN Security Council, which decided to attack Ghadaffi because he was behaving like a Chinese dictator. As for North Korea, we have sent them free food for years, and China, our “ally,” runs interference for that country. Apparently, the Koreans don’t need democracy.

But isn’t Iran also a dictatorship that suppresses democracy? Should we be soft pedaling on Iran? Well, judging by the silent consent of Western leaders, Iran is perfectly democratic. There was an uprising there during the one in Egypt, but Obama didn’t think it would be appropriate to demand that Ahmadinejad step down. After all, that dictator, who has reportedly been executing people at the rate of one every 9 hours, is anti-Israel.  No need to get rid of him.  He’s on “our” side.  A few years back, the US Energy Department even subsidized 2 Russian institutes that helped build parts of reactors for Iran.

So if the true motives of the Fabian leaders for the attack on Libya are not the noble ones they enunciate, what is the motivation? The Left never starts anything that will not likely further their cause of world domination or that will have the outcome expected and intended by the public. That explains Obama’s role in opposing a regime that in recent years has been forthcoming toward Western interests, while ignoring regimes antagonistic to our interests. Sarkozy has an additional motive: he is up for re-election soon and needs a good war at his back.

It is more than obvious that replacing regimes that support the US and Israel with our enemies (like the street mobs of Egypt — dominated by the Muslim Brotherhood; and of Libya — strongly allied with terror) will help the Left, as led by Obama and socialist Europe, to undermine Western culture and values.

The Fabian Socialists (of which Tony Blair is a member) were founded in the 1880s for the express purpose of spreading socialism and eliminating Christianity by stealth.

They believed that they could get away with anything as long as they pretended to be supporting worthy-sounding causes, and it is going swimmingly (Tony even has a religious foundation aimed at uniting all religions — that goes nicely with the Christian teaching: I [Jesus] am the way). They have managed to pretty much take over the West. You see, it wasn’t only Tony Blair. The entire power structure, top to bottom, is infested with globalist New World Order operatives, and “conservative” parties are in no way exempt. David Cameron used stealth to get elected, in keeping with the West’s trademark Fabian tactics. As head of the Conservative Party, he promised that, if elected, he would allow a referendum as to whether the UK should stay in the EU. Even though everyone now knows that was a lie, many see Dave acting like a “conservative” now, helping with a war effort in the tradition of “conservative” GW Bush (reminder: Blair’s staunchest ally). Yet starting wars whose predicted outcome is to undermine Christianity and our relations with the Middle East and endanger Israel is not necessarily a conservative thing to do, though it can certainly be deemed within the scope of Fabian stealth activities. It is hard to believe that any true conservative could support this cheap and transparent stealth tactic of starting wars for the apparent purpose of strengthening our enemies and weakening our friends. In fact, judging by the popularity of my last column on this topic (which has been reposted at several sites) and also the next-to-last (which shocked even me with the boldness of its conclusions), I seriously doubt any true conservatives do fall for this.

There is no excuse for Europeans to believe in the sincerity of the Western coalition. The Western powers that now support the attack on Ghadaffi, replete as it is with abundant collateral civilian casualties, are essentially the same leaders who insist on importing millions of hostile Muslims to Europe who refuse to assimilate and who not infrequently kill Westerners (like the people who bombed Madrid and London, like the killer of Theo van Gogh, and like so many other Islamic terrorists and violent criminals who had enjoyed Western hospitality or claimed the West as their home) or deliberately configure the Southern US border as a welcome mat for terrorists (eg, some of the 911 attackers) or promote rabidly anti-US soldiers to high ranks (eg, the Fort Hood shooter).

Democracy sounds like a worthy cause and the vast hordes of politically unsophisticated (whose study of history – or even current events — is next to non-existent) and the spiritually blind are liable to fall for this ruse.

However, the rest of us generally realize that if democracy were really a cause worth the shedding of blood, then Iran, for example, would be a nation marked by justice and protection of the weak — now that Carter has gotten rid of the cruel dictatorial Shah and paved the way for democracy there.

But the dirty open secret of democracy (as distinct from the republican form of government our founders founded) is that it neither protects the weak nor promotes justice. Invariably, it eventually winds up protecting the majority or a very powerful group of oligarchs, just as it did in the Soviet Union, China, Cuba, Cambodia, N Korea, and just as it is now doing increasingly in the Americas and Europe.

And as for Christianity, by supporting the Coalition, we are contributing mightily – knowingly or unwittingly — to the demise of Judeo-Christianity in the world.

By supporting the Iraq war, we indirectly eliminated the Assyrian Christians in Iraq by toppling a dictatorship that protected them, and are now witnessing the genocide of  the Egyptian Copts, who were at least allowed to exist under Mubarak. Within a week after Mubarak stepped down, at Obama’s behest, the democratic activist military that replaced him attacked a monastery and shot a monk and six church workers, and they’re just getting warmed up.

Behold democracy, a foul fruit with a noble-sounding name.

Remember these fruits of past Western adventures in the Middle East when the conflagration starts in earnest in North Africa and the torrent of crocodile tears from the instigators and participants from our own democracy movement starts to drown the West.

In the end, we all believe what we choose to – whether out of dangerously naïve or false altruism or because we are sympathetic to the far-left Fabian New World Order.

In either case, we reap the consequences.

Obama is already reaping some of his, both at home and abroad.

The terrorists fighting Qadaffi (he’s too moderate for them):

http://emperors-clothes.com/libya.htm

Further reading by a readers and friends:

http://www.ravenhill.org/prophet.htm