How top level Neocons like Soros deceive Christian pawns

How top Neocon connivers like Soros deceive Christian Neocon pawns

by Don Hank

I have been participating in a discussion of Neoconservatism (Neocons) on the Neocon web site AIM, which expands to Accuracy in Media, a misnomer if there ever was one. On the AIM site (which pretends to oppose Hillary but more effectively opposes Trump, absurdly alleging that he has financial interest in good Russian relations, thereby supporting her candidacy), I had used the discussion forum to alert the readers to my article on Neocons here in response to comments in favor of “Christian” Neocons. I participate in such discussions in part because they point out gaps in my commentaries. One reader understandably thought that I was referring in that article to all levels of the Neocon movement when I said that Neoconservatism is atheistic. I was referring only to the top levels, as I show below. This reader wrote (his comment at AIM is found here):

However, I see your “proof” of what Kinkaid is, is an article you wrote. But I believe you lost your argument in your first sentence. Not one neoconservative I’ve met or talked to was an atheist as you claim they are.

My response to that reader is very important because it clarifies that only the top level Neocons, like Neoconservative “godfather” Irving Kristol, are non-Christians. I had not made this clear enough in my article.

My forum response:

Yes, that was my article. Unlike cowardly Neocons, I use my real name. I am referring to our resident Neocon here [meaning Cliff Kincaid, who has written dishonestly about me in the past, as you can see if you read my comments at this thread—all comments of mine that do not appear in the AIM forum are in brackets, like this one — Don]. You disagree that Neoconservatism is atheistic. You are justified in not understanding this issue. The Upper level Neocons are atheists or at least entertain an atheistic viewpoint, as the article shows. But their trick is deceiving the lower level ones into thinking they are doing God’s work when they support the Neocon policies. That is really the whole point. I was one of those deceived, back when Bush was pushing for his war in Iraq. I foolishly thought he was a godly man who would get God’s full support and lead us to a victory over evil. But a week after we “won,” the Assyrian Christians started leaving Iraq in droves. The outcome was clear evidence of what was intended. [Bush and his planners had to know how this would play out]. The top level Neocons had succeeded. THEY won the war. [Real Americans lost.]

Here are some brief examples of how the upper echelon Neocons control unwary Christians:

Many softheaded Christians believe the Neocon narrative that both gays and Muslims are downtrodden and represent the needy that Jesus said we are to help. Ironically the 2 groups hate each other but the upper level Neocons have, diabolically, controlled the dialogue so that many “Christians” now sympathize with the political activism of both groups.

Why does the upper level do this? Easy: because the political activists of both groups [not necessarily ordinary Muslims and gays] are made to order destroyers of traditional Christianity and the top level Neocons [like Soros] are philosophical descendants of the radical branch of the Enlightenment [such as Voltaire] so they hate Christianity. Soros is at the pinnacle of this top level and he supports both groups. In Europe and the US, he is behind the mass migration movement. His followers in politics have targeted German “Christians” with the message that they must take in millions of downtrodden Muslims [arch-Neocon and atheist Soros’ involvement in the mass migration movement is documented by Breitbart and others]. Merkel is the head of the CDU — Christian Democratic Union — and millions of her supporters are nominal “Christians.” So when she says, under the influence of the Neocon shadow government, that Germany must take in these millions of Muslims, her lukewarm-Christian supporters blindly follow her Diktat. What they [and the vast majority of the Western public] do not realize is that at the top level of the Neocon hierarchy, Soros and his demons are plotting to destroy Christianity by pandering to the Muslims, many of whom are already persecuting Christian refugees. Just received this morning  a file documenting how Muslim “refugees” rampantly persecute the Christian refugees. This file is linked at the bottom of this post.

As for the gay agenda, even though many “Christian” activists [like Kincaid] are against gay marriage and the like, many are Neocons, so they have been brainwashed into hating Russia. Here, briefly, are examples of how the top-level Neocons are working to trap these middle level Neocon activists and their followers into working against their own agenda:

By opposing Russia in Syria, these zombie-like lower and middle level Neocon grunts tend to sabotage the fight against ISIS in Syria by influencing Western politicians to oppose Russia [the only world power sincerely and effectively fighting ISIS], eg, by creating a no-fly zone and driving out the Russians [a Neocon policy called for by almost all GOP presidential candidates – Trump being the notable exception – and by Hillary]. After all, they all blindly accept the absurdity that the Russians – who, as you may have noticed, never slash Christian throats – are the no. 1 enemy, and that ISIS is not nearly as significant, even though these terrorists have vowed to wipe Christians off the face of the earth. This foolish anti-Russian rhetoric indirectly, but every effectively, translates into very strong political support for ISIS, which is working, in tandem with the top level Neocons, to destroy Christianity and civilization itself. [This explains why arch-Neocon John McCain has called for arms and support for Al-Qaeda in Syria – in the belief that Americans will not remember that it was this group that killed 2 to 3 thousand Americans on 9-11, 2001. Some contributors at the discussion of the AIM site support McCain, as one might expect].

Likewise, lower level Neocon pawns indirectly oppose the very effective Russian laws against gay propaganda targeting children, supporting the false narrative that such laws are opposed to free speech per se and are homophobic, [when in fact, they effectively protect children and are an important part of Russia’s policy of counteracting the importation of dangerous propaganda from the corrupt and immoral West [for example, via Soros’ Open Society Foundations]. Note that Kincaid and his fellow Neocons oppose the gay agenda, correctly recognizing that this Western activism is evil, but absurdly insisting that the Russian opposition to it is bad – trying to have it both ways. BTW, Russia has recently banned Soros’ foundations].

In the two ways briefly described above, the lower level Neocons, who imagine themselves to be good Christians, are very effective pawns in the game intended to destroy Christianity. And they don’t even know it.

Thanks to their tragic lack of spiritual discernment [and perhaps gray matter], atheist Soros wins!

But the New Testament predicts this falling away of the church.

Open Doors survey shows persecution of Christian refugees by Muslim refugees:

2016, 8-31 Open_Doors_Survey_Religiously_motivated_attacks_on_Christian_refugees_in_Germany_2016 (2)

Is Dilma impeachment the result of a US-Soros-led covert operation?

Is Dilma impeachment the result of a covert US-Soros operation?

by Don Hank

The alternate news site counterinformation.com takes a critical view of the Dilma Rousseff impeachment process and its lead-up in Brazil, pointing out that it has all the earmarks of a Washington-led covert action. The cogent analysis they present supports what I have thought from the outset.

I never liked the far-left Brazilian president Dilma Rousseff, whose politics are not far from those of Barack Obama. Here is an article I wrote condemning her character and politics: http://www.thepostemail.com/2010/08/29/terrorist-who-will-be-brazils-next-president-came-to-our-white-house/.

If you read that article, you will see why I condemned her. I still do.

However, now that she is being impeached, a larger issue has emerged, and that is, the meddling of the corrupt leftist Washington government in sovereign governments in a cynical effort to force its will on other peoples.

My reason for opposing this meddling is two-fold:

Firstly, the elites we summarily call the New World Order have attacked a common-sense and morally justified principle that could be called the “Westphalian principle,” described by our friend Bernard Chalumeau here. It is a time-tried principle in international law, which is intended to prevent a country or countries from overpowering other, weaker countries for their own selfish purposes. If we transposed this situation to the school yard and applied it to weaker kids being bullied and having their lunch money stolen by bullies, then no one would argue that the bully must be opposed and defeated.

But in the international arena, the elites know that they can easily pull the wool over the eyes of a public who think foreign affairs are too complicated to study and understand and who are more than willing to turn over the conduct of foreign policy  – including decisions to send our young people to war –  to an elitist government claiming to be “experts” when in fact they have little or no diplomatic skill, little knowledge of the cultures of the regions they deal with (as I pointed out here; see the heading “Culture” about 9 paragraphs from top of the article), and absolutely no moral values whatsoever. Thus they fit the MO of Neoconservatism as described by the founders of that movement, which I summarized here (has no relation at all to true conservatism but millions of duped “conservatives” think it does).

My other reason is the disastrous outcomes of US meddling in other countries, such as Kosovo, Ukraine, Syria, Libya, and others. Washington’s efforts to overthrow governments never result in the replacement of a corrupt government by a stable, viable new government and a viable economy. Entire peoples are ruined as a result. (The Western press refuse en bloc to report on the current genocide in Kosovo. Please see this report).

While my attitude toward Dilma as a president remains unchanged, I want the reader to consider the larger aspect of a corrupt hypocritical Washington government stirring up an uprising against alleged corruption in Brazil (BTW, note that Dilma was not accused of a crime).

Not 5 minutes after I posted this article, one of my researchers sent me this: 

https://theintercept.com/2016/05/11/brazils-democracy-to-suffer-grievous-blow-today-as-unelectable-corrupt-neoliberal-is-installed/ 

Looks like the impeachment is a done deal and, assuming there was US involvement, Brazil could be added to the growing list of countries ruined by US meddling. I’d hate to be a Brazilian today.

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.

 

SOVEREIGNTY: BACK TO WESTPHALIAN PRINCIPLES

 

BACK TO WESTPHALIAN PRINCIPLES

By Bernard CHALUMEAU

The treaties of Westphalia and the genesis of International law.

 

Like all French school children, we are aware that the Treaties of Westphalia ended the Thirty Years War, which began with the defenestration of Prague in 1618, giving France the Three Bishopricks of Metz, Toul and Verdun  of the Holy Roman Empire.

However, let us take a closer look because there was much more to it than this:

These treaties are constituted of several agreements signed between the parties to the various conflicts:

– On January 30th, 1648, in Münster, the treaty between Spain and the United Provinces ended the war of Eighty Years.

– On October the 24th, in Münster, the treaty between France and the Holy Roman Empire ended the Thirty Years War, to which was added an act by which the Holy Empire gave to France the three Bishopricks of Alsace, Brisach and Pignerol, and another by which Emperor Ferdinand III, the archdukes of Austria, Charles, Ferdinand and Sigismund gave Alsace to France.

– On October 24, in Osnabrück, it also ended the 30 Years War.

-On July 2,1650, in Nuremberg, the two agreements between the Holy Empire and France and between the Holy Empire and Sweden relating to the enforcement of the peace.

These treaties were the bases for the organization of Germany up to the end of the Holy Roman Empire in 1806.

Unfortunately, most school texts fail to indicate that the principles of international law were born on the date these important treaties were signed.

The object of this article is not to describe the very complex progress of the Thirty Years War (1618-1848) where many conflicts pitted the Hapsburg of Spain and the Holy German Empire, supported by the Roman Catholic Church, against the Protestant German States of the Holy Empire allied with the nearby European powers with Protestant majorities, United Provinces and Scandinavian countries, as well as France, which intended to reduce the power of the Hapsburgs on the European continent.

However, one must bear in mind that it was the most dreadful slaughter of the entire 17th century, which killed several million men, women and children.

Since the demography of Europe was seriously affected, the belligerents thus looked for ways and means to avoid a recurrence of such horrific massacres.

The negotiations of these treaties lasted a long time (from 1644 till 1648), because it was necessary to establish new modes of relations between States with a view to limiting wars and to strengthen “the law of nations.”

In his work “The six books of the Republic”, published in 1576, the famous French lawyer Jean BODIN (1529-1596), had published his thoughts on public law, “res publica,” and on the powers of the king, as the first legal principles of sovereignty: “Sovereignty is the absolute  and perpetual power of the State, which is the greatest power to command. The State in the person of the monarch is supreme inside its territories, independent of any high authority, and legally equal to the other States”

Further, the Dutchman Hugo Grotius published in 1623 a work entitled “De Jure Belli et Pacis,” which proposed the establishment of a “mutual association” between nations, that is to say an international organization, thereby laying the groundwork for a code of public international law. Their ideas were intended to guide the negotiators of these treaties in establishing what has conventionally been called since that time “the Westphalian system” as a guideline for the concept of modern international relations.

– The balance of powers, meaning that any State, large or small, has the same importance on the international scene (For example, see the Article CXXII of the Münster Treaty in Old French below)

– The inviolability of national sovereign power (See article CXII of the Treaty below).

– The principle of non-intervention in the affairs of others (see article LXIV of the Treaty below).

Since the treaties of Wesphalia, a new actor succeeds the division of the power between villages, duchies and counties, namely, the modern State.  The world is organized with States whose sovereignty must be respected by the bordering states by virtue of the Westphalian concept of the border. International relations become interstate and the respected borders guarantee the peace.

These treaties proclaim the absolute sovereignty of the State as the fundamental principle of international law.

Europe becomes a set of States, having precise borders, recognized by others, in which the prince or monarch exercises his full and complete sovereignty. The characteristics of these modern States include the constitution of permanent armies and the expression by the elites of the fact of national existence. In these States, language appears as a factor of unity.

The Westphalian principles subsequently contributed to the emergence of the idea of the Nation States in the 19th century, as well as the principle of nationalities, where every National State enjoys, within its own borders, complete independence, being provided with the highest possible form of sovereign power with its own army, its own currency, its justice system, its police and an economy, allowing it to live as independently as possible of the other States.

Later the Montevideo Convention on the Rights and Duties of States, signed on December 26th 1933, would add four essential elements:

 

“To be sovereign, a State must have :

–          a permanent population.

–          a defined territory.

–          an operational government.

–          the capacity to enter directly in relation with other states.” 

 

It added a fundamental clause:

The political existence of a state is independent of its recognition by other states.

The United Nations, undoubtedly horrified by this measure, which it considered too Westphalian for its taste — since it paved the way for the emergence of multiple large or small States — then hurried to add notions of “internal sovereignty” and “external sovereignty,” so that, to be sovereign, States must have, in addition to their capacity to exercise their power over the population inside their territory without any outside constraint, the need to be recognized as sovereign States by the other States of the international system.

 

The law of nations (Jus gentium ) or public international law:

Established under the Treaties of Westphalia, this law governs the relations between the subjects of this legal system, which are States and international organizations.

A subject of international law must comply with this law and must be able to benefit from it. In the beginning, the State was the only subject of international law. But this concept became obsolete, because, after1815, the States found it necessary to join together in international organizations, gradually acquiring the status of legal subjects. Thus, the United Nations became, like the EU and other international organizations, subjects of derived law (generally referred to in American English as case law).

Introduction of the right of intervention in international relations:

Unfortunately, since the end of World War II, the increase in the number of treaties between States of the western world tended to suppress Westphalian principles by considerably developing their military, economic and financial interdependence.

At the end of the Cold War, the United States of America, an enormous consumer of energy and raw materials, desiring to extend its hegemony throughout the planet and to get energy and raw material at the lowest possible prices, noticed that the Westphalian ban on intervention in other States thwarted its designs.

The United States of America felt obliged to find a way to by-pass Paragraph 7 of Article 2 of the UN Charter, which stated:

“Nothing contained in the present Charter shall authorize the United Nations to intervene in matters which are essentially within the domestic jurisdiction of any State,” summing up the very Westphalian-sounding article 8 of the Agreement of Montevideo, which banned intervention in the internal affairs of a State.

Based on the ideas of persons such as the philosopher Jean-François Revel in 1979 and of Bernard Kouchner, a new “right” called the “right of intervention,” was concocted, i.e., the recognition of a right of one or more States to violate the sovereignty of another State, within the framework of a mandate granted by a supranational authority.

It was a wondrous invention which allowed:

–          to abolish Westphalian principles,

–          to add the notion of supranationality,

–          to intervene on the territory of any State even against the will of that State,

–          to establish world governance under the aegis of ad hoc international organizations,

–          to subjugate the weakest States to one or more stronger States,

–          to establish the hegemony of the US government.

The precious Westphalian principles were thereby overturned and the whole world returned essentially to the monstrous situation of the Thirty Years War.

The desired ad hoc international organization in the hands of United States of America was found, namely, the UN. All that was needed was the pretexts for war.

No problem:

– The US oligarchy rushes to the target State to be destabilized, a CIA team, which will increasingly include, or be supplanted by, a Soros foundation, USAID or the like, providing camouflage in the form of “private” intervention.

– This team, relying on existing opposition or opposition to be created from whole cloth in the current regime, develops a “National Liberation Front” or the equivalent thereof.

– It equips it with the necessary weapons and bolsters it with troops, usually drawn from the Islamic sphere of influence.

– Thanks to mass media under its control, it floods public opinion with information and images, often doctored, that overwhelm the government in power.

– All that remains is for the UN to pass a “resolution” allowing the armed forces of several States, mainly of the EU and the US, to come to the aid of the young “National Liberation Front” and oust the current regime.

This system worked very well for the interventions in Romania, Kosovo, Afghanistan, Iraq, Syria, Darfur, Ivory Coast, Libya, Syria, Nigeria, Ukraine, etc., spreading war throughout the planet.

The right of the bankers replaces the right of the people :

Thanks to the “legality” of the UN ad hoc resolution, the armed forces deployed in the target State destroy a maximum of infrastructure, such as power plants, factories, bridges, roads, railways, airports, runways, and so on…

Thus, when the target State is “pacified,” American companies share in the juicy reconstruction contracts. The new leader of the regime, set up by the “liberators,” is very helpful in awarding these contracts to said companies. At that point, the target State, its population and resources are under the control of the US oligarchs.

These operations are managed behind the scenes by bankers, generally US bankers. The bankers finance both belligerent parties, enjoining the winner to honor the loser’s debts. They finance the military-industrial lobbies committed in the conflict and manage the process in such a way that it is drawn out as long as possible.

So, the bankers win every time!

The superiority of the right of the bankers over the right of the people was established in Europe by the Maastricht Treaty of 1992 by the introduction of a single currency, the “euro,” controlled by the European Central Bank, completely independently of the Member States’ governments under Article 108 of that treaty.

ARTICLE 108

 

When exercising the powers and carrying out the tasks and duties conferred upon them by this Treaty and the Statute of the ESCB, neither the ECB, nor a national central bank, nor any member of their decision-making bodies shall seek or take instructions from Community institutions or bodies, governments of the Member State or from any other body.”

All European treaties since then have reinforced those provisions, resulting in an impoverishment of populations subject to this single currency and complete submission to a new slavery for the benefit of bankers.

It is no longer states that control the banks, but the banks that control the states.

Evidence of this is on flagrant display throughout the world, notably in Cyprus where depositors were ruined by bankers with the support of the International Monetary Fund, the European Commission in Brussels and the Central Bank of the EU.

 

The objective of Mayer Amschel Rothschild, founder of the Rothschild banking dynasty, expressed below:

 

“Let me produce and control the issue of currency of a state, and I do not care who can make laws”

 

has been achieved!

Having succeeded in removing Westphalian principles from international law, the bankers rule the planet, start wars wherever and whenever they want and enslave the people of the world.

Conlusion:

The Westphalian system described herein clearly shows that whoever advocates it, in France or elsewhere, i.e., patriots and the sovereignists, are peace activists! They are the future of nations. That is why the banker-controlled mass media are bent on either contradicting them with outright lies, or silencing them.

To secure peace in the world, Wesphalian principles must be restored!

History in fact shows that, as long as these principles were respected, the world (ie, Europe initially and then throughout the world from the 19th century onward) experienced overall stability, but when they were abandoned by a State or group of States, horrific conflict occurred again.

Many historians believe that the Treaty of Versailles in 1919 was responsible for World War II by violating Westphalian principles, substituting a collective security.

That is why I urge all patriots and French sovereigntists, particularly French youth, to enter into Resistance.

I invite them to partner with the youth of Europe and the rest of the world to fight by all possible means to restore Westphalian principles everywhere based on respect for the inalienable sovereignty and independence of States.

There is not only an absolute necessity to recover their freedom, their way of life, the kind of society they want to live in to escape this new slavery, but also and above all, the need to preserve their property, their lives and those of their descendants, who are, as we can see today, physically threatened.

As for me, I remain at their disposal to help them while strength and breath shall last.

French patriots!

The wind of hope is rising! It is bringing back our France! It is bringing back our freedom!

Bernard CHALUMEAU

Translation by Bernard Chalumeau, translation editing by Don Hank

SACRED SOVEREIGNTY MUST BE RESTORED

SACRED SOVEREIGNTY MUST BE RESTORED

American conservatives and libertarians have always stressed the importance of the US Constitution as the ruling document in our government. Indeed sticking to the Constitution could restore government. Yet, government moves farther and farther from that document, and sometimes with the aid of unwitting conservatives.For example, we have often made the mistake of supporting presidents based on machismo and swag instead of on their insistence on respect for the sovereignty of other countries. Indeed, we have in the past praised presidents for their decisiveness in invading a country without the permission of Congress prescribed in Article 1, Section 1, foolishly thinking we can have it both ways.

We have also forgotten Section 10 of that Article, which gives Congress the power to print money. We’ve had over a century to forget that. It was back in 1913 that Congress, without constitutional authorization, gave a group of fast talking bankers that power and dubbed them the Federal Reserve. These people are no more legitimate than our foreign born and foreign raised White House resident. But force of habit accustoms unwary and lazy-brained people to accept the unacceptable. We cherry pick the Constitution, accepting the parts we like and discarding the rest. Many of the people who do this proudly call themselves ‘Patriots’ or even ‘sovereign citizens.’

Friends, all of these missteps have cost us not only our liberty but also our national sovereignty, and those are 2 equal but separate concepts. Americans have been brainwashed into forgetting sovereignty and focusing on personal liberty. We base our demands for liberty on the Constitution. Yet our government denies people outside the US their liberty on a routine basis, denying the concept of sovereignty. We have the gall to blame it on God, averring that He will protect us no matter how we misbehave because we are ‘exceptional.’ (Yet the Bible shows that God does not allow the disobedient to win wars. Joshua, the great general, lost one war because one of his soldiers took forbidden booty.)

Sovereignty is as important to a nation as the heart is to the body. And the borders are the skin of the nation, without which it would bleed to death.

The answer to these problems is complex, and part of the problem with sovereignty is that the word is not mentioned explicitly in our Constitution, which was written by men who took for granted that the US would always be sovereign because anyone seeking to eliminate national sovereignty would be considered a traitor and not be able to acquire power. But they were wrong.

Sovereignty is a 2 way street. A nation must not only defend its own sovereignty but also that of other nations. Otherwise, the rest of the world will eventually gang up on the nation that denies theirs.

Just as our Constitution laid the groundwork for our national government, the Treaty of Westphalia, signed in 1648, laid the groundwork for the modern concept of national sovereignty and the mutual respect of nations for each other’s sovereignty — a concept no more nor less revolutionary, or vital, in its sphere than our Constitution is in its.

Yet, like the Constitution, that remarkable Treaty seems to be lying around gathering dust.

However, if we read what international law specialist Bernard Chalumeau says in his translated article (click on his name or the link below), we can catch a glimpse of the importance of reviving the concept of national sovereignty, not only for our own country, but for every other country as well.

The EU, as pointed out by M. Chalumeau, was an attempt to suppress the sovereignty of all European nations — with disastrous effects both economically and socially. But that action to enslave was met with an equal and opposite reaction as the northern countries in Europe started to demand a return of their sovereignty and pro-sovereignty parties gained momentum. UKIP in the UK, PVV in Holland and Front National in France.

I  dream of a day when the concept of national sovereignty is revived and people of all nations reach out to each other in an effort to keep this concept alive and to reinforce their power. And in so doing, to diminish the power of the self-appointed Masters of the Universe. M. Chalumeau and I are committed to seeing that happen some day. We will lend our support to any group founded on the principle of national sovereignty.

So far, there is Free Nations in the UK and France Libre in France. America can and should be the linchpin. Like Europe, we are straining under the burden of unlimited immigration and all the problems of crime, drugs, disease and job loss that such entails, not to mention the disastrous loss of prestige associated with our haphazard military adventures that violate the sovereignty of other nations.

A political party based on the principle of sovereignty could resonate with patriotic Americans and kick off the movement, if only Americans could understand the vital importance of this little-used word ‘sovereignty.’

Please give the idea your thoughts and prayers.

Bernard Chalumeau’s article:

http://laiglesforum.com/sovereignty-back-to-westphalian-principles/3133.htm

Don Hank  

Strengthening the enemies

Read the article and then take the poll:

http://www.sodahead.com/united-states/mubarak-speaks-to-protesters-but-not-stepping-down-should-he/question-1503457/?uuid=2dc1ffe2742a4410a17379ab63e824a2

 

Strengthening the enemies

 Olavo de Carvalho

Discounting the brief interruption in the Reagan era, American foreign policy since the end of World War II can be summarized by two rules which the State Department has followed with exemplary faithfulness and consistency:

1. Trade allied dictators for enemy dictators.

2.  In so doing, trade authoritarian governments for totalitarian governments a thousand times more corrupt.

Sometimes in a direct, brutal, and overt way, sometimes in an indirect, subtle, and underhanded way, and sometimes helping those against whom they had fought until the day before, the United States replaced Chiang Kai-Shek with Mao Zedong, Fulgencio Batista with Fidel Castro, Shah Reza Pahlevi with Ayatollah Khomeini, Ngo Dinh Diem with Ho Chi Minh, and General Lon Nol with Pol Pot. In human terms, the cost of all this tinkering was no less than 80 million deaths. Because of specific differences beyond the scope of this paper I am not including in the list the fact that Americans managed to get rid of Adolf Hitler at the cost of a hundred fold increase in Josef Stalin’s power and half a century of Cold War that cost them dearly.

Now the United States is replacing an ally, Hosni Mubarak, with the superlatively hostile Muslim Brotherhood, mother of all anti-American movements in the Islamic world.

In all of these cases, the government thrown overboard was on the right, while its triumphant successor was on the left. The leftists’ international outcry against Washington’s support for right-wing dictatorships is, quite obviously a disinformation engineering job calculated to obscure the stark fact that, in terms of dictators, the communists and pro-communists have been by far the biggest recipients of American aid. Some right-wing tyrants may have been “lackeys” of the United States, as the threadbare communist rhetoric proclaims, but the left-wing ones are not lackeys: they are their protégés. If the former have to work hard to repay the aid, the latter are given everything and asked for nothing in return.

Anthony Sutton, the English economist who for decades studied the generous and never-repaid flow of American money to communist countries, summarized the subject by saying that the United States always strove to get “the best enemy money could buy.”

In one of these calamitous operations, the beneficiary himself proved somewhat shocked by the generosity bestowed on him. When Americans overthrew Ngo Din Diem, Ho Chi Minh remarked: “I cannot believe Americans are that stupid.” Diem was, after all, according to North Vietnam’s Politbureau, “the greatest force of anti-communist resistance” in the region.

In all cases, without exception, the official pretext was the promotion of democracy.

The only amazing thing in this whole sequence of events is the slowness of the population—and the deliberate refusal of the media—to realize the obstinate and patent consistency of the official anti-Americanism installed in the upper echelons of Washington. The contrast between historical reality and its public image could not be sharper. The majority of the American electorate continue to believe in the legend that its country is an imperialist power committed to valiantly defending national interests and halting the advance of communists, Islamists, and all potential enemies of America, when in fact these enemies could not survive a single day without the assistance they receive from Washington.

As early as the 1950s, an investigative committee of the House of Representatives proved, beyond a shadow of a doubt, the massive support that communist governments, parties, and movements had been receiving from major billion-dollar foundations—the same ones that through the Council on Foreign Relations and similar institutions have played a major role in the selection and approval of candidates for any public office in the federal upper echelons of the US. In recent decades, the volume of contributions to universal anti-Americanism has increased mightily, turning what was once the leading nation in the world into a walled-in, hated, and cowed country, fearing to take any serious initiative against its aggressors, even within its own territory. Today there are more Chinese and Russian spies in the United States than during the Cold War, while organizations that support Islamic terrorism are allowed to operate freely, and any attempt to denounce them is repelled as an intolerable sign of extremism.

American intervention in the Egyptian crisis does not deviate from the long-established course. From the outset, both the Obama administration and George Soros—one of the chief sponsors of the current president’s career—have had friendly contacts with the Muslim Brotherhood and have encouraged it to unleash a rebellion against an ally of the US government.

The likelihood that the Brotherhood, once in power, will establish a democratic, pluralistic system is so remote and contrived as was the chance that Josef Stalin might have done the same thing once he succeeded Lenin. The regime which will possibly come after Mubarak’s removal has already shown its true colors even before coming to power, by promoting the slaughter of Christians and the burning of churches. Both the American government and the entire journalistic class are well aware of this, but they refrain from drawing the most obvious and compelling conclusions from these facts. Instead they continue to present the conflict as a struggle between Egyptian idealist democrats and the evil dictator Mubarak.

For many decades the American mainstream media —starting with The New York Times and CNN—have radically abdicated their journalistic duties and become a mere instrument of social engineering. Their current mission is not to spread information, but to meticulously control its flow so as to encourage behaviors desired by the globalist establishment and to discourage inconvenient questions.

Within the American national environment, the effectiveness of this control is quite relative, because the big media in the United States are not as big as their counterpart in Brazil, and there is a vast number of independent publications and radio stations that reach at least 50 percent of the population, showing the American people all of what the global elite would like to completely black out behind a lead shield.

It so happens, however, that the non-aligned media have strictly national circulation. They do not reach other countries. In particular, they are completely unknown in Brazil. Thus, the official view, which fails to subdue the American electorate, ultimately spreads freely throughout the world, and is construed as a kind of universal consensus.

Though limited, the credibility of the official view still seems excessive to me, since this view is daily challenged by facts which never shake in the slightest the faith of the devotees. A brief historical study will suffice to show that the principles and criteria of judgment which now guide the American mainstream media are literally the same as those that Soviet propagandists tried, unsuccessfully, to impose on the American population between the 1940’s and the 1950’s. The change was profound and overwhelming. In a few decades, at least half of the American population has grown to hate what it once loved and to accuse its own country of a thousand crimes committed by external and internal enemies, and yet these Americans have no idea that they were induced into this by the action of an omnipresent and hostile foreign force. Just as communist infiltration in the Roosevelt, Truman, and Eisenhower administrations was far greater than Joe McCarthy himself then imagined (read Spies: The Rise and Fall of the KGB in America, John Earl Haynes, Harvey Klehr and Alexander Vassiliev, Yale University Press, 2009), and just as the communist cultural war effort ended up dominating almost the entire education system in the United States to the extent that it merged with the local atmosphere and passed itself off as a spontaneous home-grown movement, the penetration of Islamic agents into all of the upper echelons of Washington was so quick and efficient an action that I can’t describe it here. One must read the book of P. David Gaubatz, Paul Sperry, Muslim Mafia: Inside The Secret Underworld That’s conspiring to Islamize America (WND Books, 2009), to understand how these things happen before the blind and foolish eyes of so many people.

In vain will the reader search the pages of The New York Times and The Washington Post, or the comments by CNN or MSNBC for any mention of the fact that Obama is acting, in Egypt, in favor of the largest anti-American organization in the universe. In the United States there is no official censorship, and that information, with sufficient evidence, reaches us from thousands of channels. But it does not reach the believers in the mainstream media, and above all, it does not leave American shores.

Even if the government that emerges out of Mubarak’s downfall is a coalition government, the Muslim Brotherhood will certainly play the predominant role in it, and this is the surest guarantee that the country will move towards a regime which will be at once dictatorial, murderous to Christians, and openly hostile to the state of Israel.

The Obama administration is fostering not only another anti-American dictatorship, but a war.

Olavo de Carvalho taught Political Philosophy at the Catholic University of Parana (Brazil) from 2001 to 2005 and is the author of twelve books. He is the founder of the Inter-American Institute for Philosophy, Government and Social Thought. He now lives in the United States as a correspondent for Brazilian newspapers. Website: www.olavodecarvalho.org.

Translator: Alessandro Cota

Translation reviewer: Don Hank

Take the poll:

http://www.sodahead.com/united-states/mubarak-speaks-to-protesters-but-not-stepping-down-should-he/question-1503457/?uuid=2dc1ffe2742a4410a17379ab63e824a2