vendredi 9 avril 2010

Le mouvement juif Néo-conservateur : du trotskisme au bellicisme sioniste


Le patriote américain Charles Lindbergh, leader de l'America First Committee, avait identifié trois grands fauteurs de guerre : les Juifs, les Britanniques (Churchill) et l'administration Roosevelt (qui était conseillé et influencé par des Juifs et qui avait moins peur des Soviets que des nazis). Lindbergh était sur la même ligne que Henry Ford et Joseph Kennedy.
















VIDEO - The War Party - Zionism in NeoCon Foreign Policy


Voir Le lobby israélien et son influence sur la politique étrangère américaine



On entend souvent parler des néocons en lien avec Bush, Cheney et Rumsfeld. Or, ces sinistres individus sont loin d'être les véritables idéologues du néo-conservatisme. Ils n'en ont été que les porte-paroles et représentants les plus en vue à l'intérieur de l'administration Bush et Reagan, qui sont les deux administrations américaines au sein desquelles les néo-conservateurs ont eu le plus d'influence. Pour comprendre le phénomène des néo-conservateurs, il importe de mettre en lumière qui sont les penseurs et quels sont les fondements idéologiques de ce mouvement. Cette petite enquête sur le mouvement néo-conservateur nous fera découvrir un petit groupe d'idéologues juifs, puisant aux idéologies trotskiste et sioniste.


Du trotskisme au néo-conservatisme


Wikipedia identifie les premiers penseurs néo-conservateurs comme étant d'anciens trotskistes juifs:

Le premier grand néo-conservateur à avoir adopté ce mot et qui est considéré comme le fondateur de cette idéologie est Irving Kristol, un Américain juif né dans une famille juive orthodoxe et père de William Kristol, fondateur du think-tank néo-conservateur Project for the New American Century. Irving Kristol a été un militant trotskyste actif pendant sa jeunesse et a exposé ses vues néoconservatrices en 1979 dans l'article "Confessions of a True, Self-Confessed 'Neoconservative.'" Les idées de Kristol sont influentes depuis les années 50 quand il a cofondé et édité le magazine Encounter. Un autre idéologue de ce mouvement était Norman Podhoretz, éditeur au magazine Commentary de 1960 à 1995. (...)
Les journaux néo-conservateurs prééminents sont Commentary et The Weekly Standard. Il existe aussi des think-tanks néo-conservateurs sur la politique étrangère dont notamment American Enterprise Institute (AEI), Project for the New American Century (PNAC), The Heritage Foundation et le Jewish Institute for National Security Affairs (JINSA).(...)
Le néo-conservatisme apparaît véritablement dans les années 1980, quoique l'on puisse trouver des éléments précoces de ce qui peut apparaître comme une école de pensée politique dans les années 1960, autour de personnalités comme Irving Kristol, Norman Podhoretz, Wilmoore Kendall, John M. Olin, James Burnham, Francis Fukuyama, ou Charles Krauthammer. (...) Ses adeptes sont souvent d'anciens démocrates, voire d'anciens trotskistes, déçus par l'évolution culturelle et intellectuelle depuis les années 1960. C'est le cas d'Irving Kristol, ou de Martin Diamond, spécialiste de la Constitution américaine. (...) Si de nombreux néoconservateurs sont de confession juive et catholique (Gerson, Mark: 1987 : 285), il serait faux de réduire cette vision politique à une approche communautaire. Il est plus juste de dire que les néoconservateurs sont le plus souvent des pro-israéliens proches du Likoud, la droite israélienne (...)


Mais qu'est-ce que le trotskisme? Pour le comprendre, il nous faut faire un bref retour sur l'idéologie communiste et la révolution bolchévique en Russie.

http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_qUFDMUpk9jE/SuoXeGSadzI/AAAAAAAAaRo/3VIIu50o5-g/s400/436px-leon_trotsky.jpg
Léon Trotsky, un des plus grands bourreaux de l'histoire


Depuis plus d'un siècle, le socialisme, le marxisme et, plus tard, le marxisme-léninisme (la doctrine bolchévique) ont été amplement promus dans des confréries francs-maçonniques d'inspiration révolutionnaire anglaises, allemandes, françaises, etc. (Plus de détails: Under The Sign of The Scorpion) En plus de cet appui des francs-maçons, la révolution bolchévique a été grassement financée par la haute finance capitaliste, celle de Wall Street, contrôlée par des milliardaires juifs talmudistes chapeautés par l'empire Rothschild, dont le coeur se situe depuis le début du 19e siècle dans la City de Londres (un État indépendant qui domine la Reine et le parlement britannique et qui régit ni plus ni moins que l'économie mondiale). (Plus de détails sur le Talmud: en anglais et en français)




Caricature Karl Marx accueilli à bras ouverts à Wall Street.
http://www.marxists.org/deutsch/referenz/bilder/hess.jpg
Petit-fils de rabbin, Karl Marx a été formé à la pensée communiste par l'érudit talmudiste Moses Hess, qu'il surnommait "mon rabbin communiste" (Source: Judaism Discovered, Michael Hoffman).

Il faut aussi savoir que les responsables de l'Holocauste des Russes et des Urkrainiens -- étaient juifs et non pas Russes (vous trouverez ici une liste non exhaustive des plus importants dirigeants juifs du bolchévisme).  Le bolchévisme était véritablement une révolution juive, dont l'élite avait pour langue officielle le Yiddish.




Selon les statistiques fournies par le Nobel de littérature et survivant des goulags Alexandre Soljenitsyne dans son livre L'archipel du goulag, plus de 66 millions de Russes ont été massacrés par les bolchéviques. Dans le second tome de L'archipel du goulag, il rappelle que les administrateurs des goulags étaient des juifs. C'est dire que même si l'on oublie les 120 millions de Chinois massacrés par le régime de Mao Tsé Tong, l'Holocauste communiste se révèle incomparablement pire que l'Holocauste nazi! Le fait est que pour vraiment rendre justice aux crimes communistes, il faudrait y consacrer une bibliothèque entière...

Selon Soljenitsyne: "les bolchéviques étaient dirigés par des non-Russes qui haïssaient le peuple russe." D'où une telle haine peut-elle bien venir? Probablement du fait que les juifs (incluant de nombreux descendants des Khazars) n'ont jamais digéré d'avoir été évincés de Russie par les Chrétiens Russes.

http://radioislam.org/islam/english/toread/Svyatoslav_tramples_khazar.jpg
Statue remémorant la défaite historique des Khazars par les armées russes.

Ainsi, dès les premières semaines suivant la révolution bolchévique, les Églises russes ont été rasées les unes après les autres, alors que les synagogues étaient laissées intactes... (Puisqu'il fallait bien que les rabbis étudient Marx la nuit venue!) Les communistes justifiaient ce massacre du fait que "les chrétiens sont des propriétaires terriens, donc des bourgeois réactionnaires, ce qui fait d'eux les pires ennemis de la révolution". En effet, les "Blancs" -- patriotes chrétiens russes -- s'opposaient aux "Rouges" -- communistes internationaux. Ce sont ces mêmes "Blancs" qui ont fait circuler les Protocoles de Sion en Russie. Tout le monde sait d'ailleurs que pour les communistes la religion est l'opium du peuple (bien qu'ils aient toujours conservé le judaïsme dans leurs bonnes grâces, plus ou moins secrètement...)


http://www.redicecreations.com/specialreports/2005/10oct/gulagcommies04.jpg
Sur cette image de promotion du premier gouvernement bolchévique en Russie, on constate que quatre des cinq principaux dirigeants sont juifs (seul celui en haut à droite n'est pas juif). Nous avons donc les juifs Lénine (en haut), Zinoviev (Aaronovitch, en haut à gauche), Trotsky (centre), Kamenev (Rosenfeld, en bas à gauche) et Sverdlov (Solomon, en bas à droite). (Voir d'autres photos de juifs communistes soviétiques et d'oligarques capitalistes.)

Léon Trotsky, le militariste qui a fondé la police secrète de la Tchéka, était directement lié à la haute finance de Wall Street. Son vrai nom était Lev Bronstein et c'était un juif newyorkais ouvertement franc-maçon (de la loge maçonnique exclusivement juive du B'Nai Brith) qui n'avait rien de russe. C'est Jacob Schiff, un banquier juif newyorkais représentant les intérêts Rothschild, président de la banque Kuhn, Loeb & Co. (propriété des Rothschild), fondateur de l'American Jewish Committee et membre de la loge maçonnique juive du B'Nai Brith, qui a financé Trotsky pour faire la révolution en Russie.

VIDEO - Britain's Responsibility in 1914 for World War One? Certains se demandent comment on peut disculper l'Allemagne de la guerre et de la révolution bolchévique tout en sachant le rôle douteux que l'Allemagne a joué notamment en ce qui concerne Lénine, qui a droit à tout un traitement de faveur de l'Allemagne qui l'a laissé partir (1:07:15). Il faut comprendre que l'Allemagne travaillait ainsi (en relâchant Lénine) à gagner la guerre en faisant en sorte que Lénine mette un terme à l'implication russe dans la grande guerre. Lénine était surtout un penseur et un exécutant. Le principal "agent occidental" (l'"expérience socialiste" à l'Est étant un projet des loges occidentales) responsable de la victoire bolchévique au terme de la guerre civile (1918-23), le vrai Cerveau organisateur c'était Trotski, qui était financé par de l'argent (juif) de New York et qui régnait sur le terrain en imposant au peuple la tyrannie de la Tchéka (police secrète) et des goulags (1:07:28.) Trotski s'était fait arrêter au Canada sous les ordres du MI-5, mais il a été relâché sous les ordres du MI-6 (équivalent anglais de ce qu'est aujourd'hui la CIA aux États-Unis) (1:08:09). C'est les puissances anglo-américaines qui sont derrière le retour de Trotski en Russie et la victoire subséquente du bolchévisme.
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/d/d0/Bundesarchiv_Bild_183-R15068,_Leo_Dawidowitsch_Trotzki.jpg/185px-Bundesarchiv_Bild_183-R15068,_Leo_Dawidowitsch_Trotzki.jpg
Léon Trotsky et Jacob Schiff: une révolution téléguidée de Wall Street
JACOB SCHIFF: THE MOST INFLUENTIAL MAN IN U.S. HISTORY

http://crm114.com/algore/images/lenin_scribe.gif
"À mon camarade Armand Hammer, de V.I.Oulianoff Lénine, 1921"

Soulignons ce qui arrivait aux pauvres gens dénoncés et arrêtés pour "antisémitisme" sous le communisme: Trotski proclamait que les “pogromistes” (patriotes combattants pour la libertés et contre la prise du pouvoir par la juiverie en Russie) “seront fusillés sur-le-champ sans procès.” (The Ogden Examiner, 11 août 1918, p.24.) En 1918, Lénine ordonnait à tous les officiels soviétiques de “prendre des mesures sans compromis pour extirper le mouvement antisémite à sa racine. Les pogromistes et agitateurs de pogromes seront hors la loi.” (Baron, Salo Wittmayer. The Russian Jew Under Tsars and Soviets. Macmillan, 1976, p.180.) En 1934, Staline réitéra les décrets barbares de Trotski et Lénine, en écrivant : “En URSS l’antisémitisme est puni avec la plus grande sévérité par la loi comme un phénomène hautement hostile au système soviétique. D'après la loi en URSS, les antisémites actifs sont sujets à la peine de mort.” (Josef Staline, Oeuvres Vol. 13) Le haut fonctionnaire soviétique Vyacheslav Molotov reconnaissait fièrement qu' “en Union soviétique les antisémites actifs sont fusillés.” (Hunterberg, Max. Tragedy of the Ages : Anti-Semitism, the Root, Cause, and Cure. New York : Associated Press, 1937, p.144.)

Fichier:Paul Warburg 01.jpg
L'agent des Rothschild Paul M. Warburg, de la fameuse famille de banquiers juifs, fut le premier président et ardent promoteur de la Réserve fédérale américaine, membre du CFR et l'un des collaborateurs de Kuhn, Loeb & co. (de Jacob Schiff), en plus d'avoir été l'un des grands financiers de la révolution bolchévique. Son fils James Paul Warburg, qui fut le conseilleur financier de Franklin D. Roosevelt., est connu pour avoir déclaré publiquement devant le CFR du Sénat des États-Unis: "Nous aurons un gouvernement mondial que nous l'aimions ou pas. La question est seulement si nous l'aurons par consentement ou par conquête." (Autres citations)

Un conflit éclata entre Staline et Trotsky quant à l'avenir de l'état soviétique et du marxisme-léninisme. Staline était nationaliste et son communisme concernait la nation russe avant tout, à l'inverse du communisme de Trotsky qui était en mode international. Les trotskistes étaient les communistes les plus intimement liés aux grands financiers internationalistes de Wall Street. Les trotskistes prônent la révolution mondiale, internationale. Ils ont vite compris qu'il valait mieux prendre le contrôle du capitalisme de l'intérieur pour ensuite étendre la révolution à l'échelle mondiale. C'est ainsi qu'ils ont pris d'assaut les centres de pouvoir américains pour en faire leur chien de combat, leur instrument de domination mondiale par lequel ils pourront fomenter des guerres afin de renverser des régimes partout dans le monde. Les trotskistes américains ont vite rejoint l'empire américain contre les staliniens et l'Union soviétique. (En fait, de nombreux grands financiers favorisaient les communistes, comme par exemple le milliardaire juif Armand Hammer qui fut un grand ami de Lénine.) Au centre du complot pour assassiner Staline (tué en 1953 le jour de le fête juive de Pourim, exactement comme le légendaire ennemi des juifs, Haman, dans le Livre d'Esther) se trouvaient des médecins juifs (voir "le complot des blouses blanches") et des agents liés à des organisations antifascistes, que Staline avait reconnues comme étant en réalité des façades des sionistes. Dès 1939, Staline a lancé des purges anti-juives et surtout antisionistes, en raison des liens évidents entre les capitalistes et les sionistes. C'est surtout à partir de ce moment que l'Union soviétique a été dépeinte dans les médias comme l'incarnation du mal et Staline comme le plus effrayant croque-mitaine après Adolf Hitler. Voici une citation surprenante de Staline, prononcée en août 1939: "Le Sionisme veut dominer le monde. Il se vengera de nos succès et accomplissements. Le Sionisme international, avec toute sa puissance, s'efforcera à détruire notre Union de sorte que notre pays ne puisse jamais se rétablir."("Zionism strives for world domination. It will take revenge for all our successes and achievements. International Zionism with all its power will strive to destroy our Union, so that our country would never recover.") Il apparaît clairement que, à l'inverse des staliniens qui ont rejeté les sionistes, les trotskistes ont rallié les sionistes et l'empire mondialiste américain qui les ont accueilli à bras ouvert d'autant plus facilement qu'ils avaient en fait jamais été très loin l'un de l'autre.

Le néo-conservateur Nathan Sharansky fait partie de ces juifs qui ont dû fuir l'Union soviétique sous Staline et qui se sont vus refuser par Staline le "droit" de plier bagage pour aller s'établir en Israël (d'où le nom de "refuzniks").  Staline avait plutôt créé le Birobijan, le premier état juif autonome, au Nord de la Chine, en 1934, bien avant la création d'Israël par l'ONU en 1948. Rappelons que Bronfman a joué un rôle de premier plan dans l'aide et le lobbying en faveur des juifs d'Union soviétique. La haine des trotskistes et des futurs néo-conservateurs vis-à-vis Staline et l'Union soviétique n'a cessé de croître depuis. Dès lors, les néo-conservateurs, ces anciens communistes trotskistes, se sont lancés dans une grande croisade contre l'Union soviétique et, hypocritement, contre le communisme. C'est la période de la guerre froide. L'influence anti-soviet de ces néo-conservateurs se fera sentir plus spécialement dans l'administration Reagan. Plus tard, les médias de Bronfman donnaient la tribune aux néoconservateurs.

Il est hautement significatif que le président George W. Bush a déjà dit que le livre sur lequel se fonde sa pensée est le livre de Nathan Sharansky The Case for Democracy (The Power of Freedom To Overcome Tyranny and Terror). Dans ce livre, Sharansky explique que c'est la mission consacrée des États-Unis de faire la guerre aux régimes tyranniques afin de porter le flambeau de "la démocratie et la liberté" aux quatre coins de la planète. Sharansky fut en fait le mentor intellectuel et conseiller secret de Bush.


http://phillips.blogs.com/photos/uncategorized/sharanaskybk_1.jpg


Le rôle des trotskistes juifs dans la révolution de mai 68 en France ne fait plus de doute, bien qu'il reste très peu connu. Des articles de revues prestigieuses telles que Le Monde et Israël Magazine ne se gênent pas pour mettre en lumière la judéité des acteurs de la révolution de mai 68. Noémie Gryndberg de la revue Israel Magazine écrit:

Mais qui sont ces étudiants revendicateurs et quelle est leur utopie ? Selon le politologue Ehud Shprinchek, la plupart viennent de bonnes familles bourgeoises, plutôt socialisantes. Et surtout, beaucoup de Juifs. Tous sont des acteurs politiques. (...)

Les Juifs et la révolution
En 1988, le quotidien Le Monde publie un article intitulé : ‘’Le mouvement de mai 68 fut-il une "révolution juive" ? En effet, la proportion de Juifs dans les mouvements révolutionnaires, que ce soit en 1917 ou en 1968, est importante. Est-ce une tradition juive que de vouloir changer le monde et de s’y engager ? Est-ce que le messianisme révolutionnaire fait écho (laïque) au messianisme juif dans sa version émancipatrice ? (...) Ces enfants d’après la Shoah exorcisent leur lourd héritage familial en devenant membres de groupes trotskistes, maoïstes ou anarchisants. Ils fondent et militent dans des mouvements révolutionnaires d’extrême gauche (Gauche prolétarienne, Jeunesse Communiste Révolutionnaire trotskyste (actuelle LCR), Organisation communiste internationaliste trotskyste) peut-être pour faire le pendant de l’extrême droite. Il est d’ailleurs intéressant de noter que les meneurs sont principalement ashkénazes. Tous ces intellectuels de la gauche radicale aujourd'hui reconvertis en député européen, maître de conférences, professeur d’histoire, philosophe (Daniel Cohn-Bendit, Daniel Schulmann, Yves Fleischl, André Glucksmann, Robert Linhardt, Henri Weber, Alain Krivine, Daniel Gluckstein, Alain Finkielkraut) ont en commun d'avoir grandi dans des familles profondément marquées par le drame de la Shoah.(...)
Même laïcisés, les Juifs gardent ancrés en eux cette mission qui incombe à Israël de mener l'humanité à son accomplissement (...) Il y a un écho entre le déterminisme historique marxiste et le Judaïsme vecteur de l'histoire de l'humanité. Comme l'a formulé Benny Lévy, philosophe ancien soixante-huitard revenu aux sources de la pensée juive, le Juif est un passeur. Il est le vecteur de l'Histoire jusqu'à l'accomplissement de l'humanité dans le projet divin ".

Moise, Marx et Trotski
Mai 68 fait appel aux deux grands théoriciens de la gauche révolutionnaire : Marx et Trotski. Eux-mêmes Juifs, ils cherchent à travers le communisme une réponse au "problème juif ". Le marxisme et le trotskisme dans sa version plus radicale de mouvement permanent et mondial seraient donc en quelque sorte sa solution globale.

Force est de constater qu'un grand nombre des ces anciens trotskistes (dont j'ai souligné les noms dans le texte) sont devenus des chantres de l'impérialisme anglo-sioniste, tant au États-Unis qu'en France et ailleurs dans le "monde libre". Plusieurs d'entre eux ont en effet exigé d'"intervenir" en Irak pour "chasser le tyran fasciste Saddam Hussein" et "restaurer la démocratie". On peut en voir quelques exemples en visionnant les vidéos suivants: Zemmour (juif) face à André Glucksmann (juif) ; Bruckner (juif)_plaidant pour la guerre en Irak ; De Mai 68 à Bush.

C'est de cette matrice révolutionnaire trotskiste qu'émergent les néocons.






Qui sont les néo-conservateurs?

Rappelons comment Wikipedia décrit le néo-conservatisme:

Le premier grand néo-conservateur à avoir adopté ce mot et qui est considéré comme le fondateur de cette idéologie est Irving Kristol, un Américain juif né dans une famille juive orthodoxe et père de William Kristol, fondateur du think-tank néo-conservateur Project for the New American Century. Irving Kristol a été un militant trotskyste actif pendant sa jeunesse et a exposé ses vues néoconservatrices en 1979 dans l'article "Confessions of a True, Self-Confessed 'Neoconservative.'" Les idées de Kristol sont influentes depuis les années 50 quand il a cofondé et édité le magazine Encounter. Un autre idéologue de ce mouvement était Norman Podhoretz, éditeur au magazine Commentary de 1960 à 1995. (...)
Les journaux néo-conservateurs prééminents sont Commentary et The Weekly Standard. Il existe aussi des think-tanks néo-conservateurs sur la politique étrangère dont notamment American Enterprise Institute (AEI), Project for the New American Century (PNAC), The Heritage Foundation et le Jewish Institute for National Security Affairs (JINSA).(...)
Le néo-conservatisme apparaît véritablement dans les années 1980, quoique l'on puisse trouver des éléments précoces de ce qui peut apparaître comme une école de pensée politique dans les années 1960, autour de personnalités comme Irving Kristol, Norman Podhoretz, Wilmoore Kendall, John M. Olin, James Burnham, Francis Fukuyama, ou Charles Krauthammer. (...) Ses adeptes sont souvent d'anciens démocrates, voire d'anciens trotskistes, déçus par l'évolution culturelle et intellectuelle depuis les années 1960. C'est le cas d'Irving Kristol, ou de Martin Diamond, spécialiste de la Constitution américaine. (...) Si de nombreux néoconservateurs sont de confession juive et catholique (Gerson, Mark: 1987 : 285), il serait faux de réduire cette vision politique à une approche communautaire. Il est plus juste de dire que les néoconservateurs sont le plus souvent des pro-israéliens proches du Likoud, la droite israélienne (...)


Les penseurs néo-conservateurs américains les plus influents sont donc d'anciens trotskistes juifs: le gourou Leo Strauss, les Kristol père et fils, les Podhoretz père et fils, les Kagan père et fils, Perle, Ledeen, Pipes, Krauthammer, Peretz, etc., qui ont toujours été proches des juifs les plus radicaux de la branche fasciste du sionisme. La plupart d'entre nous l'ignorons pour la simple et bonne raison qu'ils ont l'habitude de mettre au pouvoir des façades non-juives (ex: Dick Cheney) qu'ils influencent à distance, en restant plus ou moins dans l'ombre.

Paul Wolfowitz - 31.8 ko
Paul Wofowitz lors d'une conférence de l'AIPAC devant le Capitole


Le "think tank" néo-conservateur le plus connu est sans contredit le Project for the New American Century (PNAC, 1997). Sous la direction de William Kristol (éditeur du Weekly Standard, du magnat médiatique sioniste Rupert Murdoch=Fox/NewsCorp) et Robert Kagan (correspondant du Weekly Standard), le PNAC compte parmi ses membres : Paul Wolfowtiz (ancien président de la banque mondiale et secrétaire à la défense sous Reagan), Dick Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld (qui ont tous les trois servi sous les administrations Reagan et Bush père), Richard Perle (un invité de Bilderberg, proche de Netanyahou, conseiller du secrétaire à la défense Wolfowitz sous Reagan et directeur du conseil de la Défense sous G.W. Bush), le rabbin Dov Zakheim (contrôleur des comptes du Pentagone quand 2.3 trillions$ ont disparu peu avant le 11 septembre, ex-PDG de System Planning Corporation qui offre des dispositifs de contrôle d'avions à distance), Lewis "Scooter" Libby (Liebowitz, ancien directeur du bureau du v-p Cheney, avocat du trafiquant d'armes israélien Marc Rich, emprisonné pour son rôle dans l'affaire Plame), Eliot Cohen, Donald Kagan (père de Robert Kagan), Jeb Bush, Max Boot (éditeur du Wall Street Journal de Murdoch), Elliott Abrams (impliqué dans le scandale Iran-contra, en charge des affaires du Proche-orient au National Security Council), Steve Rosen (un espion de l'AIPAC emprisonné), Daniel Pipes (protégé de Perle et fils du théoricien anti-Soviet Richard Pipes), Robert Zoellick (nouveau président de la banque mondiale), etc., tous pro-sionistes et co-conspirateurs (sous l’égide de Wolfowitz, Feith et Libby) de la guerre en Irak -- une guerre pour les intérêts d’Israël. Parmi eux, seuls Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld et Boot ne sont pas juifs. Plusieurs d'entre eux -- Perle, Wolfowitz, Kagan, Kristol, Feith, Boot -- ont pris part à la réunion de Bilderberg en 2004.

Perle et Cheney, tous deux membres du Council on Foreign Relations (CFR), ont été tour à tour directeur du Jewish Institute for National Security Affairs (JINSA), un puissant lobby sioniste similaire à l’American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC) et tout aussi partisan de la guerre au terrorisme, de la guerre en Irak et de la prochaine guerre contre l’Iran. Perle est un ancien lobbyiste pour des vendeurs d'armes israéliens et il est très proche des juifs sionistes Michael Ledeen (le théoricien de la "destruction créatrice" du Moyen-Orient) et Elliott Abrams (le gendre du gourou belliciste néo-con Norman Podhoretz). Les liens un peu trop étroits de Perle avec Israël lui ont valu de faire l'objet d'une enquête en 1970 pour avoir passé des secrets à Israël, comme Wolfowitz l’a été en 1978.

Voici une liste un peu plus longue des principaux signataires du PNAC, tous néo-conservateurs, impliqués dans la politique américaine ou dans les médias américains. Les noms juifs sont marqués d'une astérisque.

http://www.middleeast.org/pictures/neocons.gif



Le premier paragraphe d'un article paru dans Ha'aretz, intitulé White Man's Burden, résume en une seul phrase qui sont les vrais responsables de la guerre en Irak: "La guerre en Irak a été conçue par 25 intellectuels néo-conservateurs, juifs pour la plupart, qui poussent le président Bush à changer le cours de l'histoire" ("The war in Iraq was conceived by 25 neoconservative intellectuals, most of them Jewish, who are pushing President Bush to change the course of history.") C'est exactement cela qui s'est produit.

Il n'est donc pas surprenant que les promoteurs du "surge" (remontée en force, déferlante) aient été pratiquement tous juifs, comme le signalait l'édition du 24 août 2007 du journal israélien JTA: "Pro-'surge' group is almost all Jewish : Four of five members of the board of a campaign promoting President Bush's policies in the Iraq war are Republican Jews".

Le PNAC est, grosso modo, une réitération d'un document antérieur, intitulé "Clean Break: A New Strategy for Securing the Realm", écrit par Richard Perle, Douglas Feith et James Wurmser (tous juifs) et inspiré par la clique d'extrémistes de Benjamin Netanyahou, à la tête du Likoud (le parti israélien d'extrême-droite). Le document appelait les États-Unis à se rapprocher d'Israël et à envahir et détruire l'Irak pour le bien d'Israël, puisqu'il était forcément, selon eux, dans l'intérêt des États-Unis de se débarrasser de Saddam Hussein. Et le document Clean Break suivait la même ligne pensée que le plan de l'Organisation sioniste mondiale intitulé A Strategy for Israel in the 1980's.

Le PNAC préparait donc la guerre en Irak. À la tête d'un pays très fort économiquement et politiquement, Saddam Hussein, un nationaliste qui soutenait activement la cause palestinienne et nouait des alliances économiques avec des puissances des quatre coins du monde, représentait une grande menace aux yeux des sionistes. Les néo-conservateurs et les sionistes ont même tenté de blâmer l'attentat d'Oklahoma City sur les Irakiens, mais le président Clinton s'y est fortement opposé, ce qui l'amena à privilégier la thèse du "fou solitaire" Tim McVeigh. (Un geste d'obstruction que les néo-conservateurs lui ont fait payer cher: Bill Kristol a "révélé" le premier aux médias les détails de l'affaire Lewinsky, une affaire qui allait entraîner la destitution de Clinton. Hillary Clinton parlait d'un "grand complot de la droite" contre son mari; peut-être voulait-elle parler de la droite israélienne?)

C'est dans le PNAC que les faucons de la guerre en Irak révèlent avoir besoin d’un événement révolutionnaire, un «nouveau Pearl Harbor», pour catalyser l’expansion hégémonique américaine et plus spécifiquement au Moyen-Orient: «Le processus de transformation, même s’il apporte un changement révolutionnaire, est susceptible d’être long, en l’absence d’un événement catastrophique catalyseur comme un nouveau Pearl Harbor». Le 11 septembre fut précisément ce «nouveau Pearl Harbor». L’analogie est d’autant plus pertinente que le traître Roosevelt savait pertinemment que le Japon allait attaquer la base de Pearl Harbor, mais il n’a rien fait l'empêcher, car l'objectif était de convaincre les Américains d'entrer en guerre.




Comment s'est fait la subversion néoconservatrice (israélienne) du Pentagone et de l'administration Bush? Il fallait placer des hommes aux postes-clé afin de faciliter la tromperie et la déclaration de guerre à l'Irak. Dans les années 80, sous Reagan, les néocons ont pris soin d'infiltrer la CIA en constituant une "équipe B", destinée à remplacer et neutraliser la CIA (appelée "équipe A"). Plus récemment, et pour une très courte durée (2003-2004), Paul Wolfowitz et Douglas Feith ont constitué le Office of Special Plans (OSP), qui regroupait la plupart des plus importants agents israéliens néoconservateurs: Richard Perle (alors directeur du Defense Policy Board), Abram Shulsky (protégé de Perle) et Eliott Abrams (alors responsable des affaires proche-orientales au National Security Council). C'est l'OSP, plus précisément Perle et Shulsky, qui sont à l'origine des fausses informations sur les prétendues "armes de destruction massives irakiennes" qui allaient servir à justifier la guerre voulue par Cheney-Rumsfeld et Wolfowitz. L'OSP a aussi fondé le Committee fo the Liberation of Iraq (CLI) qui comptait parmi ses membres: Richard Perle, Rep. Newt Gingrich, James Woolsey de la CIA, Bill Kristol (Weekly Standard), John McCain et Bob Kerry.

Douglas Feith et Paul Wolfowitz, les numéros 2 et 3 au Pentagone à l'époque, se révèlent donc être les principaux responsables de la destruction de la nation irakienne.

À quand leur procès pour crimes de guerre?


http://stopthewarnow.net/iran/Neocons.jpg
Les juifs néocons qui ont tiré les ficelles pour faire la guerre en Irak:
William Kristol, Richard Perle, Paul Wolfowitz, Elliott Abrams, Douglas Feith
Mis à part Abrams, ils ont tous déjà été invités à la réunion de Bilderberg.


http://www.conspiracyplanet.com/images/funny%20report.jpg

Paul Wolfowitz a quitté son poste au Pentagone lorsque ça a commencé à chauffer pour les néocons qui faisaient l'objet d'une enquête du FBI (pour plus de détails, voir le scandale d'espionnage israélien à l'AIPAC). Après avoir quitté son poste, Wolfowitz devint président de la Banque mondiale.

Dans cette affaire d'espionnage d'une ampleur sans précédent (en raison de l'importance de l'organisation AIPAC, qui représente le plus puissant lobby aux États-Unis et rallie des appuis aussi bien des démocrates que des républicains), seule une poignée de bouc émissaires (Libby, Rosen, Weissman) ont été inculpés, bien que les néocons les plus importants aient dû se soumettre à des entrevues avec le FBI. L'AIPAC et les principaux agents israéliens néocons (Perle, Feith, Wolfowitz, Shulsky) étaient sous surveillance et sous enquête du FBI depuis des décennies. Il est possible que le scandale d'espionnage à l'AIPAC soit en quelque sorte une vengeance de la CIA contre ces néocons qui ont réussi à marginaliser la CIA et à faire en sorte que le gouvernement ignore ses mises en garde concernant les fausses informations sur les armes de destruction massive.









L'union maudite du fascisme sioniste et de l'anti-fascisme des ex-trotskistes

La position ultra-sioniste des néo-conservateurs est en droite ligne avec la pensée du fasciste juif Vladimir Jabotinsky (dénoncé par Einstein, notamment dans une lettre au New York Times), le fondateur du Bétar et l'inspiration de l'organisation terroriste Irgoun, qui a perpétré le massacre de Deir Yassin, qui a fait sauter l'hotel King David, sous la direction du futur PM Menachem Begin, pour enfin se métamorphoser en parti de droite extrémiste: le Likoud. (C’est ce même parti qui, sous le mandat d’Ariel Sharon, en 2002, érigera le Mur entourant la Palestine, réalisant ainsi le rêve du «Mur de Fer» imaginé en 1923 par Jabotinsky.) À l'inverse de la posture économique et communiste (matérialiste et athée) du penseur sioniste Theodor Herzl, la posture sioniste de Vladimir Jabotinsky était identitaire: raciste, ultra-religieuse et fasciste. Netanyahou, le dirigeant du Likoud et actuel premier ministre d'Israël, est le meilleur exemple de la continuité sans faille des Likoudniks avec la pensée des fascistes juifs: non seulement son père BenZion était secrétaire de Jabotinsky, mais en plus Netanyahou est un étudiant assidu de la pensée de Jabotinsky. Netanyahou est directement connecté aux néo-conservateurs et l'on reconnaît son influence dans le contenu du Clean Break, écrit principalement par son proche ami Richard Perle. En fait, toute l’idée de la guerre au terrorisme vient du livre de Netanyahou paru en 1986, intitulé «Terrorism: How the West Can Win». 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 supprimer. Le jour même du 11 septembre, Netanyahou déclarait que le drame du 11 septembre était «très bon pour les relations entre les États-Unis et Israël» (New York Times). Il a répété cette affirmation scandaleuse en 2008.

[benyaminNatanyahou.jpg]

[begin.jpg]

Certes, les néo-conservateurs sont liés aux fascistes sionistes, mais quand on remonte aux théoriciens néo-conservateurs, on constate qu'ils étaient des communistes trotskistes, anti-staliniens et anti-soviet. Le fait qu'ils se proclament "anti-communistes" relève de la pure hypocrisie, voire du mensonge.

Les trotskistes étaient les champions du mouvement et de la posture "anti-fasciste". Historiquement, nul ne conteste que "l'anti-fascisme" est né du trotskisme. Mais avant de traiter d'anti-fascisme, il faut clarifier le sens du mot "fascisme". Alors que les trotskistes épousaient la pensée libérale et promouvait démocratie comme vecteur de révolution internationale, en réaction au libéralisme - qu'il soit communiste ou capitaliste - s'est érigé une opposition: le fascisme. Le mouvement fasciste prônait le nationalisme, le patriotisme, la religion, les valeurs morales et un État fort qui prenne en main non seulement l'État de droit mais aussi la culture et surtout l'économie. Le nationalisme fasciste se voulait un rejet brutal, d'une part, de l'internationale libérale-capitaliste, c'est-à-dire la droite, et, d'autre part, de l'internationale communiste, c'est-à-dire la gauche. Plus tard, le terme "fasciste" servira à désigner globalement l'extrême-droite et servira aux trotskistes pour salir leurs ennemis. Toujours est-il que l'anti-fascisme des trotskistes a à ce point pénétré la psyché populaire que très peu de gens se souviennent de ses origines trotskistes.

Wikipedia rappelle que les néo-conservateurs sont juifs anti-fascistes et anti-nazis à la sauce "Plus Jamais Auschwitz": " Le néo-conservatisme se distingue du conservatisme traditionnel et du néolibéralisme. Anticommuniste et antifasciste, le néo-conservatisme est né sur le principe de « plus jamais Auschwitz ». " (Rappelons ici que cet anti-communisme était en réalité un anti-soviétisme d'inspiration trotskiste et non pas seulement capitaliste.)




Le slogan "Plus Jamais Auschwitz" et la rhétorique ostensiblement "anti-fasciste" des néocons est décelable jusque dans leurs écrits. On remarque facilement que les néocons et autres agents sionistes sont toujours en train de traiter les musulmans et les groupes identifiés comme "terroristes" d'être des nazis et des fascistes, des hitlériens, des chemises brunes, des chemises noires, etc. Ils accusent systématiquement leurs ennemis d'être des fascistes et, tout comme ils ont traité Saddam de fasciste et de tyran, dépeignant le moyen-orient en entier comme étant le terreau de "l'islamofascisme", ils accusent la Chine de devenir un "régime fasciste". Alors que nous sommes tous témoins de la chute du prétendu "monde libre" dans la dictature et la tyrannie la plus totale (exemple: Google utilisé comme outil de censure et de collecte de renseignements personnels pour les services secrets occidentaux), un tel niveau d'hypocrisie est proprement consternant. (Faut-il en rire ou en pleurer?) Les néocons en ont particulièrement contre la "vieille Europe", associée à l'émergence du nationalisme, du nazisme et du communisme. en fait ils en veulent surtout à l'Europe pour la même raison qu'ils en veulent à l'ONU: parce que ces entités politiques ne reculent pas devant la nécessité de condamner les exactions commises par Israël contre les Palestiniens (pour plus de détails, voir la conférence de Durban, qui s'est tenue 4 jours avant le 11 septembre 2001). On peut constater cette tendance anti-fasciste dans les articles de Michael Ledeen, néo-conservateur et théoricien de la destruction créatrice: Beijing Embraces Classical Fascism, paru dans le Far Eastern Economic Review, et Black Shirts in Red China, paru dans The Wall Street Journal. Autre exemple flagrant: "China is actually the world’s first mature fascist state. It was fascism not national socialism but the kind of fascism that people like Mussolini installed in Italy in the 1920’s that we’re talking about. The economy is a mixed economy; mixed public and private economy. And there is a certain degree of private initiative that’s left in the hands of entrepreneurs and business leaders and even trade unions."(tiré de Michael Ledeen on Fascist China, Epoch Times) Ledeen a consacré ses 15 premières années de travail à l'étude du fascisme (Michael Ledeen on Fascism & War on Terror on National Review Online).

En France, on dénombre aussi une bonne quantité de néo-conservateurs à la solde de l'atlanto-sionisme. Prenons par exemple Bernard Henri Lévy qui s'époumone à dénoncer le "fascislamisme" (voir les vidéos suivants: "Fascislamism" by Bernard-Henri Lévy et BHL contre le fascisme) C'est une constante évidente chez les néo-conservateurs: tous pro-fascistes en ce qui concerne Israël, mais anti-fascistes lorsque vient le temps de réclamer des guerres pour abattre "les bourreaux de la liberté et de la démocratie", c'est-à-dire tous ceux qui osent leur tenir tête!





Ouverture

S'il n'y a qu'une seule leçon à tirer de ce portrait peu enjôleur de la réalité néo-conservatrice, c'est bien celle-ci: gare aux anti-fascistes qui stigmatisent sans arrêt "l'islamo-fascisme" et les "tyrans" justifiant des guerres impérialistes qui n'en finissent plus sous prétexte de défendre la liberté et la démocratie, car il s'agit en fait pour eux de répandre aux quatre coins du globe la plus odieuse tyrannie que l'humanité ait jamais connu.




Pour plus de documentation sur les origines juives, trotskistes et sionistes des néo-conservateurs, voir:

Michael Collins Piper, The High Priests of War: 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 (section photo)

Michael Collins Piper, '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' (2009)

Michael Collins Piper, 'The Judas Goats -- The Enemy Within: The Shocking Story of the Infiltration and Subversion of the American Nationalist Movement'


****Dr. Stephen Sniegoski: The Sanitized Version of Neoconservatism****
What these books still conceal, however, is the fact that the neocons are motivated by their Jewish ethnicity and the interests of the state of Israel. Instead the neocons are made to appear as an ideological group loyal solely to what they believe is good for the US. Consequently, this approach, despite allowing for some elements of truth, distorts the overall picture in a serious way.


Derrière Northwoods: Israël et "l'équipe B" (néocons)

James Petras lève le voile sur les agents sionistes responsables de la guerre en Irak et du scandale d'espionnage à l'AIPAC

The Source of America’s Wars – Kristol Clear [VIDEO] (Richard Cohen called the war in Iraq: "Kristol's War")

takeourworldback.com Ligne du temps du 11 septembre

takeourworldback.com Sionistes, psychopathes et 11 septembre

takeourworldback.com A Comprehensive History of Zionist Crimes

takeourworldback.com How to Achieve Total World Domination - over 1,250 to 6,000 Years / Concise version

VIDEO - Willis Carto explique la ploutocratie médiatique des Bronfman

VIDEO - War Made Easy: propagande guerrière

AUDIO - Michael Collins Piper explique la nouvelle Babylone

AUDIO - Les dessous de l'empire Rothschild, les nouveaux pharisiens. Entrevue avec Michael Collins Piper








Le dernier livre de Kerry Bolton Stalin - The Enduring Legacy présente un côté de Staline faisant grandement penser à Poutine, voire au national-socialisme, opposé à la fois à l'internationale trotskiste et à l'internationale capitaliste du "nouvel ordre mondial". Tant Staline que Poutine sont diabolisés par les juifs américains et la juiverie internationale, fortement influencés par la pensée trotskiste (écouter à ce sujet le fondateurs et porte-parole des "prisonniers de Sion" refuzniks, Nathan Sharansky, président de la Jewish Agency qui a grandement inspiré George W. Bush, comme le rapportait le leader néocon juif William Kristol, fils du fameux Trotskyiste Irving Kristol alias "Néo", qui fut l'un des principaux fondateurs du néo-conservatisme).



STALIN THE ENDURING LEGACY
Stalin: The Enduring Legacy considers the 'Man of Steel' in a manner that will outrage dogmatists of both Left and Right. Stalinist Russia is reassessed as a state that transcended Marxism, and proceeded on a nationalist and imperial path rather than as the citadel of 'world revolution'. Stalin reversed many early Bolshevik policies re-instituting, for example, the traditional family. He abolished the Communist International, championed 'realism' in the arts and rejected post-1945 US plans for a 'new world order'. Despite so-called 'de-Stalinization' after his death, the Soviet bloc continued to oppose globalism, as does Putin's Russia. Stalin: The Enduring Legacy, examines the anti-Marxist character of Stalinism, the legitimacy of the Moscow Trials against the 'Old Bolsheviks', the origins of the Cold War, the development of Trotskyism as a tool of US foreign policy, the question of Stalin's murder, and the relevance of Russia to the future of world power politics. 'Dr. Bolton's book Stalin: The Enduring Legacy is a major contribution to the proper understanding of Russian, as well as American, politics and society in the twentieth century. It brushes aside the anti-Stalinist biases of the Trotskyist American chroniclers of this historical period to reveal the unquestionable integrity of Stalin as a nationalist leader. At the same time, it highlights the vital differences between the Russian national character rooted in the soil and history of Russia, and its opposite,the rootless Jewish cosmopolitanism that Trotskyist Marxism sought to impose on the Russians - as well as on the rest of the world'. - Dr Alexander Jacob


Zyuganov Communists Continue Stalin’s Fight Against “Rootless Cosmopolitanism” By Kerry R. Bolton

America’s ‘World Revolution’: Neo-Trotskyist Foundations of U.S. Foreign Policy By Kerry R. Bolton


A major international strain of anti-Stalinism was sponsored by the CIA (Wikipedia)

Modern art was CIA 'weapon' in Cold War?

Zyuganov Communists Continue Stalin’s Fight Against “Rootless Cosmopolitanism”  by Dr Kerry Bolton

Le conflit de Staline avec les juifs par Kerry Bolton
(...)Les trotskistes se pressèrent sous les bannières des USA, et la CIA fonda le Congrès pour la Liberté Culturelle, une tentative pour enrôler les intellectuels et les artistes dans une offensive de propagande contre l’URSS. Les fondateurs comprenaient les dirigeants trotskistes Sidney Hook, James Burnham, Melvin Lasky, et d’éminents socialistes anti-soviétiques comme Arthur Koestler, Bertrand Russell et le poète Stephen Spender. L’un des patrons britanniques était Frederic Warburg de la famille de banquiers Warburg, Frederic étant propriétaire de Secker & Warburg, qui publiait des livres trotskistes et d’autres livres socialistes anti-staliniens.  Origines des néo-conservateurs actuels

Václav Havel: The “Inner Enemy” by Kerry Bolton
(...)The program of Kulturkampf against the Soviet bloc can be traced to Trotsky, always a very handy tool for international finance. In 1938 André Breton,[13] Mexican communist muralist Diego Rivera,[14] and Leon Trotsky issued a manifesto entitled Towards a Free Revolutionary Art.[15] The manifesto was published in the Autumn 1938 issue of The Partisan Review, a magazine that was of significance in the Cold War-Trotskyite offensive. Trotsky, according to Breton, had actually written the Manifesto, which states:
Insofar as it originates with an individual, insofar as it brings into play subjective talents to create something which brings about an objective enriching of culture, any philosophical, sociological, scientific, or artistic discovery seems to be the fruit of a precious chance, that is to say, the manifestation, more or less spontaneous, of necessity. . . . Specifically, we cannot remain indifferent to the intellectual conditions under which creative activity takes place, nor should we fail to pay all respect to those particular laws that govern intellectual creation.
In the contemporary world we must recognize the ever more widespread destruction of those conditions under which intellectual creation is possible. . . . The regime of Hitler, now that it has rid Germany of all those artists whose work expressed the slightest sympathy for liberty, however superficial, has reduced those who still consent to take up pen or brush to the status of domestic servants of the regime. . . . If reports may be believed, it is the same in the Soviet Union. . . . True art, which is not content to play variations on ready-made models but rather insists on expressing the inner needs of man and of mankind in its time — true art is unable not to be revolutionary, not to aspire to a complete and radical reconstruction of society. . . . We recognize that only the social revolution can sweep clean the path for a new culture. If, however, we reject all solidarity with the bureaucracy now in control of the Soviet Union it is precisely because, in our eyes, it represents, not communism, but its most treacherous and dangerous enemy. . . .
The criterion for art given here by Trotsky seems more of the nature of the anarchism of Breton and of the future New Left than of the collectivist nature of Marxism. F. Chernov, whose important statement on the arts from a Stalinist viewpoint will be considered below, was to refer to such art as “nihilism.”
Given that the manifesto was published in The Partisan Review, which was later to receive subsidies from the CIA and the tax-exempt foundations as party to what became the “Cultural Cold War,” this Trotskyist art manifesto served as the basis for the art policy that was adopted after World War II by the CIA and the globalists as part of the Cold War offensive.[16] Trotsky wrote Towards a Free Revolutionary Art as a call for mobilization by artists throughout the world, to oppose on the cultural front Fascism and Stalinism, which to many Leftists and communists were synonymous...




Stalin: The Enduring Legacy
stalin-the-enduring-legacy
1,420 words
Kerry Bolton
Stalin: The Enduring Legacy
London: Black House Publishing, 2012
At the beginning of 1989, I thought that “Russia” (the USSR) was an evil empire, a totalitarian system built on repression and propaganda and bent on global domination. I also thought that the United States was the principal impediment to Soviet world domination, the bulwark of freedom. By the end of 1989, I was giddy, for America had stood firm long enough for the USSR to collapse of its internal contradictions before it could cast its net over the entire globe.
Today, however, things seem very different. Like many White Nationalists, I see the United States as an evil empire, a soft totalitarian system built on lies and repression and pursuing global domination. Indeed, our system is built on the same lie as Communism: human equality. Furthermore, Russia is now the principal bulwark against American global domination.
But this time, the stake is not “freedom” but something far more important, for if unchecked, American-style global liberalism and capitalism mean the death of the white race. Thus, if our race is to survive, Russia must stand firm against globalization until the American system succumbs to its own inner contradictions before it can drag the rest of the world down with it.
Kerry Bolton’s Stalin: The Enduring Legacy shows that the roots of the present world situation are far deeper than I had imagined.
Stalin is one of history’s greatest monsters, and Bolton’s book does not attempt to deny or minimize Stalin’s crimes, although I would find such a revisionist project interesting to read, given that our image of Stalin was manufactured by some of the same people who manufactured our image of Hitler, which is largely false.
Bolton’s main concern is with Stalin’s “legacy,” namely his influence on present-day Realpolitik, the conflict between the forces of globalization and the forces of national self-determination. And it turns out that Stalin’s principal enemy is our own, namely the international Jewish community, although Stalin himself never saw it that way.
Bolton’s book is filled with surprising revelations.
Chapter 1, “Stalin’s Fight Against International Communism,” outlines the basis of Stalin’s conflict with Trotsky. Once in power, Stalin reversed a number of the policies established by Lenin and favored by Trotsky and his followers.
In terms of economic policy, Lenin and Trotsky favored a rapprochement with international capitalism, particularly the international Jewish banks that had funded Bolshevism from the beginning. Stalin, however, was not Jewish. He was also an orthodox Communist. He funded the revolution by robbing banks, not borrowing from them. Thus Stalin turned the USSR toward economic autarky and full-scale collectivization of industry and agriculture, with catastrophic consequences for the peasantry and workers.
Stalin did, however, pursue much healthier policies in the social realm. He sought to restore the family and marriage, limit access to abortion, reestablish discipline and standards in education, and combat “rootless cosmopolitanism” and “formalism” in art and culture in the name of artistic styles rooted in folk culture and capable of appealing to and elevating the tastes of the masses.
Stalin is widely condemned as a philistine, but in truth he had well-developed tastes in art and music. The positive effects that he had on Soviet culture can be illustrated most clearly by comparing Shostakovich’s fourth symphony, an avant-garde train-wreck which he withdrew under criticism, with his fifth symphony, one of the great symphonies of the 20th century, which Stalin wrung out of him using the muse of terror.
Bolton never really gives us a sense of why Stalin did any of this. What really made him tick? He was clearly highly intelligent, outfoxing some of the shrewdest statesmen and schemers in history. He was also demonstrably well-versed in Marxist theory and appeared to be a sincere Communist. He knew a great deal about history. And he had excellent taste in music.
Yet he seemed entirely lacking in morality and human warmth. He was not a Russian, so he could not be accused of nationalistic sentiments. He was also an atheist, so religion played no role in his life. He had no sentimentality about the past and was a deep-dyed revolutionary. But in spite of all this, perhaps out of sheer pragmatism, Stalin gave the USSR a somewhat nationalistic, somewhat socially conservative form of socialism.
Chapter 2, “Stalin and the Art of Rootless Cosmopolitanism,” deals with the cozy relationship between Trotskyite exiles in the United States, the Central Intelligence Agency, and the Rockefeller foundation in promoting Abstract Expressionism and other forms of modern art as the all American answer to Stalinist philistinism.
The fact that the US government ended up using the tax dollars of Idaho potato farmers and Texas ranchers to promote cultural Bolshevism in the art world as a purely symbolic element of the Trotskyite opposition to Stalin is, frankly, astonishing. Whenever whites permit a critical mass of Jews in our societies, it seems inevitable that we become pawns in Jewish machinations, even arcane “inner party” disputes that are utterly detached from reality.
Chapter 3, “The Moscow Trials in Historical Context,” is the most remarkable chapter in the book. Here Bolton lays out in great detail just how plausible Stalin’s case against the Trotskyite opposition was.
The fact that so many of Stalin’s policy preferences ran counter to the ethnic interests and tastes of Bolshevism’s huge Jewish contingent meant that Stalin’s policies inevitably seemed anti-Semitic to the most ethnocentric Jewish communists, who became the core of the Trotskyite opposition. (Later, the the Zionist wing of the Trotskyite movement became the nucleus of neconservatism.)
But calling Stalin an anti-Semite is an undeserved compliment. Yes, he was an anti-Trotskyite. Yes, later he was an anti-Zionist. Yes, Stalin killed countless Jewish Bolsheviks. But one could not purge an overwhelmingly Jewish party without purging some Jews. Nevertheless, Stalin maintained the loyalty of many Jewish communists to the very end. Thus Stalin was an anti-Semite only in Joe Sobran’s sense of the term: Jews hated him. But Stalin didn’t hate Jews as such. He fought them only to the extent that they opposed his policies and his conception of Communism.
But nevertheless, Stalin did change the ethnic character of Soviet Communism from something recognizably Jewish and nihilistic to something recognizably Russian and socially conservative. And although Jews were a privileged people in the USSR up to the very end, they no longer felt that the regime was theirs. According to Solzhenitsyn’s Two Hundred Years Together, after Stalin’s death, the regime took active steps to curb Jewish overrepresentation in elite institutions. Jews were still massively overrepresented, but from the kvetching, you would think they were making bricks for the pharaoh. By the 1970s, an exodus to Israel and the United States was underway. This gives some hope for American whites. For even token efforts to limit Jewish overrepresentation in our society will be magnified immensely by Jewish hypersensitivity, perhaps enough to spark an exodus of our own.
Chapters 4 and 5 deal with the origins of the Cold War. Contrary to the old Right-wing American canard that the United Nations was a communist conspiracy to destroy American sovereignty, the United Nations actually sought to establish a genuine world government under US control at the end of the Second World War, and it was Stalin who stopped it in its tracks. Furthermore, the United States wanted to “internationalize” atomic energy, which meant that the UN, under the control of the US, would take control of uranium mining and refinement to maintain the US monopoly on atomic weapons. When Stalin said nyet to both, one world government was halted and the Cold War was off and running. And, as it turns out, Trotskyites took part in every aspect of the Cold War’s implementation.
Chapters 6 and 7 deal with Stalin’s death (poison) and post-Soviet Russia. After the collapse of the USSR, the United States sought to establish a unipolar hegemony and to bring Russia into the global system. Many of the architects of this New World Order were neoconservative offshoots of the Trotskyite movement and their ethnic kin. Vladimir Putin, however, spiked their plans, which is one reason he is likened to Stalin today. And that is how we have arrived at the present correlation of forces: globalist, Judaized America vs. European, nationalist Russia.
I highly recommend Stalin: The Enduring Legacy. It is a slender volume of 160 pages that you can breeze through in an afternoon. My only complaint is that the book was evidently rushed into print and is swarming with typos and formatting problems that will inevitably detract somewhat from its impact.
If you enjoyed this piece, and wish to encourage more like it, give a tip through Paypal. You can earmark your tip directly to the author or translator, or you can put it in a general fund. (Be sure to specify which in the "Add special instructions to seller" box at Paypal.)
This entry was posted in North American New Right and tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , .


Stalin’s Fight Against International Communism by Kerry Bolton
This is the first chapter of Kerry Bolton’s new book Stalin: The Enduring Legacy (London: Black House Publishing, 2012). The chapter is being reprinted as formatted in the book. Counter-Currents will also run a review of the book, which I highly recommend. 

 

Trotsky, Stalin and the Cold War: The Historic Implications and Continuing Ramifications of the Trotsky-Stalin Conflict By Kerry Bolton
The Moscow Trials were symptomatic of a great divide that had occurred in Bolshevism. The Allied alliance with Stalin during World War II had formed an assumption among internationalists of the US ‘foreign policy establishment’ that after the Axis defeat a ‘new world order’ might emerge via the United Nations Organisation. This assumption was ill-founded, and the result was the Cold War. Trotskyists emerged as avid Cold Warriors dialectically concluding that the USSR represented the primary obstacle to world socialism. This essay examines the dialectical process by which major factions of Trotskyism became, in Stalinist parlance, a ‘tool of foreign powers and of world capitalism.’
(...)
Stalin Correct in Fundamental Accusations Against Trotskyites
What is significant is that Khrushchev did concede that Stalin was correct in his fundamental allegation that the Trotskyists, Bukharinites et al represented a faction that sought the ‘restoration of capitalism and capitulation to the world bourgeoisie’. However Khrushchev and even Stalin could not go far enough in their denunciation of Trotskyists et al as seeking to ‘restore capitalism’ and as being agents of foreign powers. To expose the full facts in regard to such accusations would also mean to expose some unpalatable, hidden factors of the Bolshevik Revolution itself, and of Lenin; which would undermine the whole edifice upon which Soviet authority rested – the October 1917 Revolution. Lenin, and Trotsky in particular, had intricate associations with many un-proletarian individuals and interests.
The fact of behind the scenes machinations between the Bolsheviks and international finance was commented upon publicly by two very well-positioned but quite different sources: Henry Wickham Steed, conservative editor of The London Times, and Samuel Gompers, head of the American Federation of Labour.
In a first-hand account of the Peace Conference of 1919 Wickham Steed stated that proceedings were interrupted by the return from Moscow of William C Bullitt and Lincoln Steffens, ‘who had been sent to Russia towards the middle of February by Colonel House[1] and Mr. Lansing, for the purpose of studying conditions, political and economic, therein for the benefit of the American Commissioners plenipotentiary to negotiate peace.’[2] Steed stated specifically and at some length that international finance was behind the move for recognition of the Bolshevik regime and other moves in favour of the Bolsheviks, stating that: ‘Potent international financial interests were at work in favour of the immediate recognition of the Bolshevists.’[3] In return for diplomatic recognition Tchitcherin, the Bolshevist Commissary for Foreign Affairs, was offering ‘extensive commercial and economic concessions.’[4]
For his part, Samuel Gompers, the American labour leader, was vehemently opposed to the Bolsheviks and any recognition or commercial transactions, stating to the press in regard to negotiations at the international economic conference at Genoa, that a group of ‘predatory international financiers’ were working for the recognition of the Bolshevik regime for the opening up of resources for exploitation. Gompers described this as an ‘Anglo-American-German banking group’. He also commented that prominent Americans who had a history of anti-labour attitudes were advocating recognition of the Bolshevik regime.[5]
Trotsky’s Banking Connections
What is of significance here however is that Trotsky in particular was the focus of attention by many individuals acting on behalf not only of foreign powers but of international financial institutions. Hence while Stalin and even Khrushchev could aver to the association of Trotsky with foreign powers and even – albeit vaguely – with seeking the ‘restoration of capitalism and capitulation to the world bourgeoisie’, to trace the links more specifically to international finance would inevitably lead to the association also of the Bolshevik regime per se to those same sources, thus undermining the founding myth of the USSR as being the ‘dictatorship of the proletariat’.
These associations between Trotsky and international finance, as well as foreign intelligence services, have been meticulously documented by Dr Richard Spence.[6] Spence states that ‘Trotsky was the recipient of mysterious financial assistance and was a person of keen interest to German, Russian and British agents’. Such contentions are very similar to the charges against Trotsky et al at the Moscow Trials, and there are details and personalities involved, said to have been extracted under torture and threats, that are in fact confirmed by Spence, who traces Trotsky’s patronage as far back as 1916 when he was an exile from Czarist Russia and was being expelled from a succession of countries in Europe before finding his way to the USA, prior to his return to Russia in 1917 to play his part in the Revolution. Expelled from France to Spain, Trotsky was locked up as a ‘terrorist agitator’ for three and a half days in comfortable conditions.[7] Ernst Bark, perhaps with the use of German funds, arranged Trotsky’s release and his transfer to Cadiz to await passage with his family to New York and paid for first class passage on the SS Montserrat. Bark was cousin of the Czar’s minister of finance Petr Bark who, despite his service to the Czar, had the pro-German, pro-Bolshevik banker Olof Aschberg, of the Nya Banken, Sweden, as his financial agent for his New York dealings. A report reaching US Military Intelligence in 1918 stated that Trotsky had been ‘bought by the Germans’, and that he was organising the Bolshevik[8] movement with Parvus.(...)


Le conflit de Staline avec les Juifs 
par Kerry R. Bolton

Histoire :: Europe de l'Est
Le conflit de Staline avec les Juifs
Staline était-il juif ? L’arrière-petit-fils détruit le mythe de l’ascendance juive de Staline

La scission entre Trotski et Staline il y a quelque 80 ans continue à avoir des conséquences cruciales pour la politique mondiale. Certains ont vu cela comme une brouille entre criminels, certains comme rien de plus qu’une dispute tactique entre des bolcheviks qui partageaient néanmoins un but commun, certains comme une querelle familiale juive de plus.

Il y a des historiens qui pensent que Staline était un antisémite, ou qu’en fait il avait toujours été contrôlé par les Juifs. Certains pensent que Staline était lui-même juif et qu’il a apporté à l’URSS et à ses satellites autant de bienfaits juifs que l’ont fait Trotski, Bela Kun et les autres.

Parmi les auteurs non-orthodoxes et qualifiés d’« antisémites », une faction pense que le conflit de Staline avec Trotski et la purge des trotskistes et des autres Vieux Bolcheviks, juifs pour la plupart, montre que Staline suivait une voie qui n’était pas seulement opposée aux Juifs mais aussi à de nombreux égards opposée au bolchevisme.

Le bolchevisme inversé de Staline

Staline étant bien installé comme dictateur de l’URSS, il inversa beaucoup des préceptes bolcheviks. La maternité fut honorée, avec un « Ordre de la gloire maternelle » dans le style nazi [1]. Des lois anti-avortement et anti-divorce furent passées en 1936, et l’homosexualité fut mise hors la loi. Le réalisme socialiste devint l’art officiel. Staline poursuivit des objectifs panslavistes à la place de celui de la « révolution mondiale » défendu par Trotski. L’Association des Vieux Bolcheviks fut dissoute, tout comme le Komintern. Il n’y aurait pas de « révolution mondiale », il y aurait une expansion territoriale soviétique. Les partis communistes du monde entier serviraient la politique étrangère soviétique. Dans le cas de la Chine, Staline ne reconnut pas les maoïstes avant qu’ils n’aient vraiment expulsé de Chine Tchang Kaï Tchek. Son ambassadeur resta avec les Nationalistes jusqu’à la fin. Le Département d’Etat américain fit plus que Staline pour promouvoir le communisme en Chine.

Après la première guerre mondiale, l’Administration Wilson des USA eut une politique pro-bolchevik et recommanda la reconnaissance diplomatique du régime soviétique encore précaire lors de la conférence de paix de Paris. Les principaux acteurs, d’après le directeur du London Times, Henry Wickham Steed, dans ses mémoires, étaient Jacob Schiff, les Warburg et d’autres banquiers « allemands » qui souhaitaient exploiter la Russie. Les troupes américaines, bien loin d’aider les armées anti-soviétiques, entrèrent en Sibérie sous le commandement du général Graves et tinrent la ligne du Transsibérien jusqu’au retrait de l’Armée Blanche et jusqu’à la victoire de l’Armée Rouge. L’administration bolchevik salua chaleureusement les troupes US comme de « vrais amis et alliés », d’après un reportage contemporain du New York Times (15 février 1920).

Guerre froide

Avec la montée de l’Allemagne nazie, Roosevelt maintint une politique pro-Staline, ce qui pourrait expliquer le refus des USA d’autoriser l’entrée de la dépouille de Trotski aux USA en 1940. Après la seconde guerre mondiale, les USA espéraient pouvoir créer un Nouvel Ordre Mondial (comme Wilson avait tenté de le faire après la première guerre mondiale avec la Société des Nations) à travers l’ONU et avec Staline comme partenaire subalterne.

Pour sa part, Staline anéantit ces espoirs en s’assurant que l’ONU soit rendue inutile en tant que Parlement Mondial embryonnaire sous contrôle US. Au lieu de laisser le pouvoir être investi dans l’Assemblée générale (où les votes des nations à la fois criblées de dettes et fatiguées de la guerre comme la Grande-Bretagne et des pays du Tiers Monde émergeant pouvaient être achetés), Staline maintint inflexiblement qu’il ne rejoindrait l’ONU que si le Conseil de Sécurité avait un droit de veto.

Le Plan Baruch (ainsi nommé d’après le nom du banquier international et « vieil homme d’Etat américain » Bernard Baruch) pour l’« internationalisation de l’énergie atomique » (encore une façade pour le contrôle US, comme le remarqua à juste titre l’URSS) fut également rejeté par Staline.

Le rejet par Staline de ces plans mondialistes entraîna la « guerre froide ». Certains théoriciens de la conspiration ont prétendu que cette animosité était une supercherie par laquelle toutes les nations seraient attirées dans l’orbite US ou soviétique alors que toutes deux seraient secrètement d’accord. Les USA n’étaient pas prêts pour une guerre chaude ; ils visaient à un contrôle au moyen de la dette et de la subversion (en grande partie culturelle).

Concernant cette époque, le philosophe américain Yockey écrit :

« Cela commença au début de 1947 avec le refus des Russes d’abandonner une partie de leur souveraineté aux dénommées ‘Nations Unies’ dans un but de ‘contrôle’ de l’industrie des armes atomiques. (…) Ce refus russe dérangea les plans de la direction juive (…) La politique suivante de la direction juive fut de persuader le régime de Staline, par l’encerclement et par la pression de la ‘guerre froide’, que toute résistance était sans espoir… »
(F.P. Yockey, Qu’y a-t-il derrière la pendaison des onze Juifs de Prague ?, 1952)

Les trotskistes se pressèrent sous les bannières des USA, et la CIA fonda le Congrès pour la Liberté Culturelle, une tentative pour enrôler les intellectuels et les artistes dans une offensive de propagande contre l’URSS. Les fondateurs comprenaient les dirigeants trotskistes Sidney Hook, James Burnham, Melvin Lasky, et d’éminents socialistes anti-soviétiques comme Arthur Koestler, Bertrand Russell et le poète Stephen Spender. L’un des patrons britanniques était Frederic Warburg de la famille de banquiers Warburg, Frederic étant propriétaire de Secker & Warburg, qui publiait des livres trotskistes et d’autres livres socialistes anti-staliniens.

Origines des néo-conservateurs actuels

Cet arrière-plan est important pour notre compréhension de la politique étrangère et militaire américaine d’aujourd’hui. Les trotskistes qui s’alignèrent avec les USA dans une croisade contre une Russie débarrassée de Trotski devinrent les mentors et les pères des néo-cons qui dirigent aujourd’hui à Washington. Irving Kristol (père de l’actuel néo-con et directeur de l’influent Weekly Standard), William Kristol, Jean Kirkpatrick (ex-ambassadeur US à l’ONU), Wolfowitz du Département de la Défense, commencèrent comme trotskistes. La stratégie militaire et diplomatique fondamentale de l’après-guerre fut conçue par des intellectuels ex-trotskistes comme James Burnham. Il fut décoré de la Médaille de la Liberté par Reagan, tout comme le vieux « menchevik », le Prof. Sidney Hook. Les politiques trotskistes de la guerre froide furent intégrées dans l’actuel programme mondialiste US et la dénommée « guerre contre le terrorisme ».

Ce que nous voyons aujourd’hui comme de la politique étrangère US est fondamentalement du trotskisme. Le président Bush déclare que les USA sont le centre d’un « mouvement démocratique mondial ». La conception US de la démocratie est considérée comme un système universellement applicable et le monde entier doit s’y conformer. Les stratèges politiques comme Michael Ledeen écrivent que les USA sont le centre d’une révolution mondiale ; que les USA ont une mission messianique de « destruction créatrice ». C’est ainsi que le trotskisme s’est transformé en doctrine actuelle des USA, et qu’il a ses origines dans la rupture Staline-Trotski.

L’origine ethnique de Staline

Quant à Staline, le mythe de ses origines juives continue. Un article de R.N. Terrall dans le numéro de mai/juin 2003 de la revue révisionniste Barnes Review tente de montrer les origines juives de Staline. Des traits supposément juifs incluent l’opposition à l’establishment, un talent pour les pamphlets et des capacités organisationnelles, et un intérêt pour les langues étrangères.

Il est aussi affirmé que Joseph est un nom typiquement juif, ce qui aurait été impensable pour un non-Juif dans la Russie tsariste. Pourtant Joseph fut baptisé dans l’Eglise orthodoxe et fut placé au séminaire par une mère dévote.

La principale affirmation concernant l’origine juive de Staline est que son nom patrilinéaire Djugachvili signifie « fils d’un Juif » en géorgien. « Dju » est supposé signifier « juif ». Pourtant, si c’est un nom juif si transparent, il n’y eut pas d’effort particulier pour le cacher, en dépit de l’adoption du pseudonyme de parti « Staline » en 1912. Les Djugachvili continuent à être bien connus en Russie et ils ne sont pas particulièrement bien disposés envers les Juifs, même aujourd’hui. En fait, le petit-fils de Staline fut candidat au Parlement russe il y a quelques années avec un programme nationaliste et anti-sioniste. Staline jouit aujourd’hui d’un regain de popularité chez les nationalistes de tendance dure qui ne sont pas bien disposés envers les sionistes et les oligarques juifs et qui seraient sûrement au courant si Djugachvili signifiait vraiment « fils d’un Juif ». L’arrière-petit-fils de Staline, Jacob Djugachvili, écrit :

« Mon père Evgueni Djugachvili fut cofondateur de l’Union des Officiers (Soyouz Officierov) et de la Société de Staline. En 2000, il fut candidat aux élections parlementaires en Russie (la Douma). Il n’appela pas à la ‘restauration du communisme’, mais à traduire en justice ceux qui envahirent la Russie en 1917, mais échappèrent à un jugement, ceux qui vendirent notre pays au sionisme mondial : Gorbatchev, Eltsine, Chevardnadze… »
(cité sur le site de Peter Myers : http://users.cyberone.com.au/myers/)

Mr. Terrall dit aussi que le premier-né de Staline fut prénommé Yakov, pour sûr un nom juif, et que les trois enfants de Staline épousèrent tous des conjoints juifs, et que ses trois épouses étaient juives.

Pas d’épouses juives

L’arrière-petit-fils Jacob Djugachvili, en réponse à la question du chercheur australien Peter Myers, déclare à propos des soi-disant « trois femmes juives » de Staline :

« Oui, vous pouvez ajouter mes commentaires sur ces conneries concernant J. Staline et Rosa Kaganovitch… Je pense que vous devriez corriger et signaler que ni Ekaterine Svanidze ni Nadezhda Allilueva n’étaient juives… Avant tout, vous devez savoir que Staline fut marié deux fois : sa première femme fut Ekaterine Svanidze, une Géorgienne avec laquelle il eut un fils, Yakov. Il n’y a pas la moindre trace de sang juif. La seconde femme fut Nadezhda Allilueva, une Russe du Sud avec du sang gitan, avec laquelle il eut Svetlana et Vassili… Pour l’arbre généalogique, veuillez jeter un coup d’œil sur : www.jugashvili.com »

Lazar Kaganovtich, le bras droit de Staline qui réussit à survivre aux purges contre ses compagnons juifs, avait une sœur et une nièce toutes deux prénommées Rosa. Aucune des deux ne fut jamais la femme ou la maîtresse de Staline.

Mr. Terrall et d’autres semblent conclure trop facilement à une origine juive sur la base d’un prénom ou d’un second prénom juifs, alors que bien sûr l’utilisation de tels prénoms est une coutume chrétienne.

Signification de Djugachvili

Concernant le nom « Djugachvili » lui-même, signifiant soi-disant « fils d’un juif », d’une évidence accablante, Jacob Djugachvili écrit :

« J’espère que vous avez vu l’arbre généalogique sur mon site web, de sorte que je n’aie pas besoin d’expliquer mes origines.

Je commencerai par la fin de votre message. Avant tout, vous devez savoir que dans l’alphabet géorgien il y a deux consonnes ‘G’, un qui se prononce comme la première lettre de ‘Great’ et un autre ‘G’ qui se prononce comme le ‘R’ français, donc notre nom se prononce ‘Dju’ ‘r’ ‘achvili’. D’habitude notre nom s’écrit Dzhugashvili, parce qu’il n’y a pas de ‘J’ dans l’alphabet russe, donc les Russes utilisent deux lettres, ‘D’ et ‘ZH’ … J’ai donc décidé de l’écrire JUGASHVILI parce que l’alphabet anglais me permet d’utiliser un ‘J’ à la place des trois lettres ‘D’, ‘Z’ et ‘H’… Maintenant, la chose principale concernant l’origine du nom : il y a un village dans l’est de la Géorgie (la Kakhetia – une région vinicole, vous en avez probablement entendu parler) appelé Ju ‘r’ aani… »

Jacob Djugachvili ajoute :

« …Il n’existe pas de mot JUIF pour désigner les Juifs en langue géorgienne… Juif en géorgien se dit ‘EBRAELI’, donc la théorie du ‘fils de juif’ (qui est très tentante si l’on examine notre nom à la lumière de sa prononciation anglaise) est simplement erronée… »

La signification du nom n’est donc pas l’évident « fils de juif », mais une référence à un village de l’est de la Géorgie.

Si l’on considère le mal que Staline et les dirigeants ultérieurs se sont donné pour dissimuler les origines juives de Lénine, il semble évident que Staline aurait cherché encore plus complètement à cacher son nom de famille s’il avait vraiment sonné comme : « Hé les Russes, je suis le fils d’un Juif ! ».

Sang khevsure et ossète

L’écrivain John Jewell, qui publia pendant les années 80 un bulletin très bien informé, Direct Action, qui traitait souvent des questions russes, dit concernant les origines ethniques de Staline :

« Père – Vissarion Ivoanovitch Djugachvili : cordonnier géorgien de la féroce tribu Khevsure. Racialement de la race tauride des caucasoïdes : spécifiquement du type Mtebid, qui est transitif entre les grands Dinariques europoïdes et les petits Arménoïdes asiatiques de la région.
Mère : Ekaterina Georgievna Geladze, paysanne du village de Gambareuil. Elle avait du sang ossète, sa famille venant des proches montagnes d’Ossétie du Sud, une région chrétienne incorporée à la Géorgie. Les Ossètes sont des Indo-Européens : grands, blonds à 30%, avec des yeux clairs. Ossète vient de ‘Asas’ (« astral »), un nom tribal aryen… venant des anciens Alains, un peuple sauromate-scythe qui dominait la steppe et le Caucase du Nord… »

C’est ce sang qui coulait dans ses veines lorsque Joseph Djugachvili, un sabre à la main, accomplissait l’ancienne danse de la tribu guerrière Khevsure lors de son mariage en 1904, dans la maison du révolutionnaire nationaliste géorgien, le prince Budu Mdivani.

Purges contre les Juifs et les sionistes

Quant aux Juifs parmi les révolutionnaires, Staline rejoignit les Bolcheviks parce qu’il trouvait qu’ils comptaient moins de Juifs que les Mencheviks, et dit au révolutionnaire Razdem Arsenidze que les Mencheviks (dont Trotski fit partie jusqu’à la veille de la prise de contrôle bolchevik) n’étaient que des Juifs non-circoncis … des couards et des boutiquiers ».

S’étant débarrassé de la faction trotskiste avant la guerre, Staline put ensuite revenir à la question juive. Dans la Région Autonome Juive du Birobidjan, il ordonna une purge de la direction communiste et interdit le seul journal yiddish de l’URSS. En 1947 commença une purge contre les Juifs dans les domaines culturel et politique. Les théâtres juifs furent fermés. Le dirigeant juif, Solomon Mikhoels, renommé comme acteur et directeur, mais associé aux causes sioniste et juive, fut écrasé par un camion et son corps laissé dans la rue. En 1949, les Juifs furent purgés des postes militaires et diplomatiques. Entre 1949 et 1952, 30.000 Juifs furent déportés au Birobidjan où ils furent obligés de demeurer. Ils étaient traités de « cosmopolites sans racines ». Les purges furent conduites par Jdanov qui mourut soudainement en 1948. En 1952, une purge commença contre les Juifs dans les postes administratifs et de direction. La presse soviétique affirma que ces Juifs étaient liés au sionisme.

Staline utilisa plus tard la mort de Jdanov pour accuser des docteurs juifs de l’avoir tué – le dénommé « complot des blouses blanches » –, et de préparer le meurtre d’autres dirigeants soviétiques incluant lui-même.

En 1951, le chef du part communiste tchèque, Rudolf Slansky, fut limogé pour « activités contre l’Etat ». L’année suivante, lui et treize autres furent jugés comme trotskistes et sionistes. Onze furent pendus. Les Juifs d’outre-mer furent aussi impliqués dans une conspiration sioniste de grande ampleur avec Israël et les USA au centre – incluant « le nationaliste juif » et ministre français des Colonies, Georges Mandel [2] ; et Moshe Pijade, l’« idéologue juif titiste » en Yougoslavie. Slansky fut décrit par la presse stalinienne comme étant « un sioniste par sa nature même ». De telles actions dans l’appareil soviétique contre les Juifs en tant qu’agents sionistes continuèrent jusque dans les années 60, particulièrement en Tchécoslovaquie et en Pologne (Paul Lendvai, Anti-Semitism in Eastern Europe, 1971).

En février 1953, Staline autorisa la construction de camps de concentration au Kazakhstan, en Sibérie et dans le Nord arctique. Les Juifs soviétiques devaient y être déportés. Considérant les sionistes et les USA comme étroitement liés, Staline envisageait aussi une offensive atomique contre l’Amérique.

Staline assassiné par Beria

Pourtant, en mars 1953, seulement quelques semaines avant le procès des docteurs accusés dans le « complot des blouses blanches », Staline s’effondra juste après avoir dîné avec Beria, Khrouchtchev et deux autres membres du Politburo. Sa mort fut annoncée quatre jours plus tard, comme étant due à une hémorragie du cerveau. Pourtant le rapport des docteurs, qui n’a été révélé que récemment, atteste que la cause fut une hémorragie de l’estomac, suggérant un empoisonnement.

Le chef juif de la police secrète de Staline, Beria, semble avoir été la figure centrale dans la mort de Staline. Les gardes de Staline avaient été renvoyés par l’un des hommes de Beria. Quand Staline fut finalement découvert gisant sur le plancher, Beria fut appelé et maintint que Staline était seulement endormi. Vingt-quatre heures plus tard, Khrouchtchev fit venir les docteurs. Même à ce moment, Beria avait encore peur de Staline, vomissant sa haine puis restant prostré suivant l’état de conscience de Staline. Beria resta à le veiller et quand Staline mourut quelques jours plus tard, Beria ressortit rayonnant de joie.

Sergo Beria, le fils de Lavrenti Beria, déclare dans une biographie que son père avait toujours détesté Staline. Il raconte que son père faisait allusion à un assassinat.

Beria craignait de faire partie de la prochaine purge ; un de plus dans une longue série des chefs juifs successifs de la police secrète.

Molotov rappela qu’alors que lui et Beria se tenaient sur la Place Rouge pour faire l’éloge funèbre de Staline, Beria se tourna vers Molotov et dit : « Je l’ai supprimé ».

Après la mort de Staline, Beria qui était le chef de l’énorme appareil policier tout comme celui de l’énergie atomique, préparait une prise du pouvoir. L’armée soviétique sous le commandement du maréchal Joukov l’exécuta.

Quant aux rumeurs continuelles concernant Staline, son arrière-petit-fils commente :

« …De telles histoires (il y en a beaucoup ; vous devriez regarder les journaux de la période de la ‘perestroïka’ !) furent inventées pour une raison : pour discréditer son nom et distraire l’attention du peuple loin du sujet principal : le combat de Staline contre l’invasion sioniste de la Russie et des autres nations unies à elle. »
notes
[1] Sous le IIIe Reich, les mères de famille « méritantes » étaient honorées par une décoration, que l’humour populaire qualifia de « Kaninchen Order » (« Ordre du lapin »). (NDT)

[2] Il s’agit visiblement d’une erreur de l’auteur. Georges Mandel fut ministre des Colonies de 1938 à 1940, et était effectivement le chef de file de la tendance belliciste dans l’état français ; il fut exécuté par la Milice vichyste en 1944. Les commentaires précités de la presse soviétique peuvent avoir été faits après le Pacte germano-soviétique (août 1939). Ou bien l’auteur de cet article parle bien de l’année 1952, mais a confondu Mandel avec quelqu’un d’autre. (NDT)

Article publié dans la revue néo-zélandaise « Western Destiny », N° 36, août 2004.

1953, la chute d'un Haman moderne (le "tyran antisémite" Staline)
Pendant le Farbrengen du repas de Pourim de 5713 (1953), il est survenu quelque chose de tout à fait exceptionnel : au début du Farbrengen, le Rabbi avait prononcé un Maamar, précédé des minutes de préparations habituelles. Puis, quelques heures plus tard, à la fin de la nuit, le visage du Rabbi a pâli puis s’est enflammé dans une expression de dévotion extrême.(...)Quelque temps plus tard, tous comprirent quand il fut dévoilé que Staline, le tyran antisémite, avait eu une embolie cérébrale cette nuit-là. Il est mort quelques jours plus tard, le 5 mars 1953...


Today I Am a Woman: Stories of Bat Mitzvah around the World
http://books.google.com/books?id=uLdNQi2-j9EC


Soviet Jews Saved From Stalin’s Genocidal Plans on Purim
United With Israel
Soviet dictator Joseph Stalin has in actuality murdered more people than Adolph Hitler. Stalin, like Hitler, was an anti-Semite and the Jews of the Soviet Union suffered immensely under his rule. Many Jews, such as Genya Reichman, were forced to engage in slave labor under Stalin upon fleeing Nazis-controlled areas. In fact, even Jewish refugee children, such as Annia Segal, grew up under horrendous conditions in the Soviet Gulag. Yet, by 1953, the status of Soviet Jewry had deteriorated even further and Soviet Jews were facing a possible genocide. But on Purim about 60 years ago, Soviet dictator Joseph Stalin collapsed. Soon afterwards, he died, thus sparing the Jewish people another Holocaust. It was a miracle!
Stalin’s plan to annihilate the Jews of the Soviet Union which he had formulated immediately prior to his death is one of the lesser known facts of history. Yet, not even ten years after the conclusion of the Holocaust, there was a full-scale attack upon Soviet Jews, complete with purges, executions, imprisonments, and the imposed exile of tens of thousands of Jews. In early 1953, the Soviet media was alleging that Jewish doctors had a conspiracy to poison top-level Soviet officials, thus increasing the level of hostility directed towards Soviet Jews. The Jews of the Soviet Union were living in terror under Stalin, especially in the early 1950’s. And then, in the midst of the so-called doctor’s plot, Stalin had started to plan for the deportation of 2 to 4 million Jews to Siberia and Central Asia, where they would be annihilated, as a collective punishment for a conspiracy invented by the Stalin-controlled Soviet media.
Kliment Yefremovich Voroshilov
Kliment Yefremovich Voroshilov
During a meeting with top-level Soviet officials, there were other Soviet government members who did oppose Stalin’s plans against the Jewish people. Vyacheslav Molotov, who was married to a Jewish woman, staunchly objected to Stalin’s plans against the Jewish people and had the audacity to tell the dictator that such a move would be horrendous for public relations. Kliment Yefremovich Voroshilov, who also had a Jewish wife, actually went as far as chasing away Soviet agents from his home using a rifle in order to protect his Jewish wife. He then had the audacity to tell Stalin that he no longer wished to be a member of the Communist Party. An enraged Stalin responded that only he had the right to determine who will be in the Communist Party. Soon after that, on that Purim day about 60 years ago, Stalin collapsed on the floor and he would die not long after that.
Interestingly, on the same day that Joseph Stalin collapsed, the Lubavich Rebbe was leading a Purim gathering. Members of the Jewish community had asked for him to pray for the Soviet Jewish community. However, instead of doing this, the Lubavich Rebbe told a story. He proclaimed, “After the czar fell in Russia, it was announced that the government would be holding elections. The Rebbe Rashab, fifth to Chabad dynasty, sent word to the Chasidim that they were to participate in the voting process. There was one particular Chasid who was completely removed from the affairs of the world; to him the political arena was foreign territory. Nonetheless, having received an explicit instruction from the Rebbe, he set out to fulfill his command. With a sense of awe and reverence he immersed himself in a mikvah, donned his gartel (belt for prayer) and set out for the polling booth. Of course, when he got there, he had no idea what he was expected to do, but some of the more worldly Chasidim helped him cast his vote. Adjusting his gartel, the Chasid did what everyone else was doing. When the votes were cast, everyone cried out ‘Hurrah!’ Taking his cue from those around him he likewise cried out, ‘Hurrah! Hurrah! Hurrah!’”
339976 
Yet in this mans heart, he meant to cry this out in Hebrew, which is Hu-Ra (he is evil). As the Lubavich Rebbe stated the word “Hu-rah,” his face was burning in such an inspiring way that his Purim crowd also began to shout “Hu-rah,” in regards to Stalin. It is an interesting coincidence that soon after that Stalin passed away. It is as if the Jewish people were praying for a miracle and they got one. According to Dr. Rushnin, author of Why Stalin Didn’t Murder All of the Jews, Stalin’s death “in itself [is] such a happy end to a huge threat [that] deserves to be remembered and commemorated by all Jews.” Jews traditionally believe that whenever the Jewish community is miraculously saved from disaster, this date should be celebrated on the appropriate date. Thus, in 1996, Dr. Rushnin initiated Little Purim celebrations in honor of Soviet Jewry being saved and this Little Soviet Purim is celebrated in over 100 synagogues across the United States.
By Rachel Avraham


Shturem
Eyewitness Account: Inside the Downfall of a Modern-Day Haman
Joseph Stalin, the dictator of the Soviet Union, responsible for the murder of over twenty million human beings (with some estimates running as high as 40,000,000) was one of the most evil tyrants the world has ever known. In modern times, he was paralleled only by Hitler, may their names be erased.
In early 1953, according to many historians, Stalin began to orchestrate a plan which, he intended, would result in the deportation of millions of Jews of the Soviet Union to Siberia and Central Asia and, eventually, to their annihilation.
His ruse began with a blood libel: A group of Jewish doctors were “caught” conspiring to poison top Soviet officials, and thereby “destroy the motherland.” Stoked by the Russian propaganda machine, anti-Semitic hatred was riled against the Jews.
With Stalin poised to take the next step of his nefarious plot – the extent of which was unknown to the public at the time – at least one Jewish leader seems to have known of the scheme.
In his recent testimony given to the My Encounter with the Rebbe project, Reb Yoel Kahan, who participated in the Rebbe’s Farbrengen of Purim, 5713, shared the events of that day which, clearly, played a role in the story’s unexpected ending. As in the original Purim story, “It was turned upside down, and the Jews were victorious over their enemies.”

This special interview was dedicated in loving memory of: Tzvi Yechetzkel Ben Eliezer Gordon
To view click play




“America would be destroyed along with the Jews”

If your paper is to continue its excellent work of opposing the policy of the Jew, please do not fight Russia also, for we in Europe look upon it as the only hope to prevent Jewish world domination by means of its stupid, willing, technically clever American slaves, the destroyers of Europe’s cities, the hate-mongers of the vile occupation and the hangmen of Nuremberg.

—European correspondent to Common Sense (a newspaper published in the US between 1947 and 1972)

Both Germans and Russians seemed to have a better grasp of the Jewish Question than the trusting, naive Americans with little experience in the plate tectonics of the clash of civilizations. At the left, a National Socialist pamphlet: “Roosevelt betrays America!”
 The Germans thus caricatured a Jew controlling the American president as his puppet.



 ~ ~ ~



L'erreur de la plupart des anti-communistes est de croire que le coeur du complot communiste international serait en Russie et donc que la Russie "crypto-communiste" serait sur le point de ressusciter l'URSS. En fait le coeur du communisme international était aux États-Unis. Les anti-communistes croient pour la plupart que le courant conservateur américain a toujours été à l'avant-garde de l'anti-communisme. Ils ignorent que le conservatisme américain a été infiltré et instrumentalisé par des Trotskistes et que ce sont précisément ces Trotskistes (juifs pour la plupart) qui sont derrière la guerre froide, cette paranoïa et cette haine contre l'URSS et contre les Russes eux-mêmes. C'est de ce terreau trotskiste pseudo-conservateur qu'a émergé le "néo-conservatisme". Le discours de la John Birch Society et du National Review (du demi-juif William F. Buckley) est identique à la propagande anti-Poutine et anti-Russie qu'on nous sert aujourd'hui du côté puissances sionistes et américaines-occidentales!  Et le pire c'est que le camp des soi-disant patriotes anti-mondialistes est aussi infiltré par les trotskistes devenus néocons.

Ce que les membres de la JBS ne savent pas c'est que leur héro anti-communiste J. Edgar Hoover était secrètement le "trotskyiste en chef" du parti communiste américain lié à la plus grande organisation communiste américaine... Le mccarthyisme a été utilisé par les trotskistes pour faire le ménage au sens de la mouvance communiste aux USA, afin de vouer aux gémonies les staliniens et les pro-soviets. 

Faut-il souligner que nombre de ces trotskistes étaient juifs? C'est probablement ce qui explique la position pro-juive et pro-israélienne (judéo-chrétienne occidentaliste) de la JBS, qui a toujours présenté Israel comme un bastion de l'Occident et du monde libre contre les "ennemis de l'Occident" que sont les communistes (alors qu'en réalité, c'est Israel qui avait le plus grand nombre de partis communistes à l'époque!). Ivan Kalmar souligne lui aussi avec insistance l'antisémitisme du stalinisme: The Trotskys, Freuds and Woody Allens: Portrait of a Culture.
 
N'oublions pas que la Tchéka, ancêtre du KGB, et le Goulag n'ont pas été inventés par Staline mais par la première génération de révolutionnaires juifs bolchéviques, soit précisément ceux que Staline a fait éliminer...









Stalin's Last Crime: The Plot Against the Jewish Doctors 1948-1953
Où l'on apprend que la dernière dose de médicament a été donnée à Staline le soir de Pourim. L'ouvrage montre que Staline a été tué par ceux qu'il voulait faire tuer: ses médecins juifs qu'il savait être en train de conspirer contre lui.






Stalin's 1937 Counter-Revolution Against Trotskyism
Dan Michaels


Soviet general Victor Filatov summed it up as such:
Glorious 1937! In that year Stalin finally came to understand that it was Zionism, not Communism, that was being built in the USSR and he destroyed it. After 1937, Suvorov and Kutuzov, Nakhimov and Ushakov, Bogdan Khmelnitsky and the “Knight in Tiger Skin” became the national symbols. And the Russians, Ukrainians, Belorussians – all those whom the Zionists had destroyed and left to rot in prisons, labeled “nationalists” or “anti-Semites – returned. General Viktor Filatov [“Glorious 1937!”, Zavtra, 9 September 1997. The Russian national heroes are: General Aleksandr Suvorov, General Mikhail Kutuzov, Admiral Pavel Nakhimov, and Admiral Fyodor Ushakov. The Knight in the Tiger’s skin is Prince Tariel of India, from the famous Georgian poem Vephkhviskhaosani.]
In his book Myths and the Truth about 1937: Stalin’s Counter-Revolution (YAZA-PRESS, Moscow, 2010, 288 pp.), Andrei Burovsky assumes the role of devil’s advocate or apologist for the crimes committed by Josef Stalin during the time of  “The Great Purge.”(...)
Burovsky’s view is that the events of 1937 did not represent the usual case in which the devil under indictment is accused of crimes against innocent victims, but rather a case in which the devil is alleged to have committed crimes against another devil of even greater evil; it was the war between Stalin and Trotsky. True, Stalin had succeeded in exiling his nemesis in 1929, but the spirit of Trotskyism, according to Burovsky, had permeated the entire communist establishment and the Red dictator was determined to eradicate it.
The author refers to the war between the two devils as Stalin’s counter-revolution because, until Stalin undertook the great purge, the revolution and the Communist state had been overwhelmingly a Jewish enterprise with Lenin and Trotsky the leading lights. The goal of the Trotskyites, as demonstrated by the Comintern [Communist International], was to establish a permanent worldwide revolution “to fight by all available means, including armed force, for the overthrow of the international bourgeoisie and for the creation of an international Soviet Republic as a transition stage to the complete abolition of the state.”
By this definition, it was quite obvious that Trotsky and his cohorts were embarking upon a reckless adventure to establish a utopia based on nothing except their own fanciful dreams. To accomplish this, agents in every important country, usually citizens of those countries, either volunteered or were recruited to undermine the bourgeois government under which they lived and agitate for world revolution.
According to Burovsky, because Trotsky and a plethora of fellow Jews already held sway in the Soviet Union, many of their coreligionists in the free world both openly (when possible) and secretly (if not possible) admired the accomplishment of their fellow Jews and lent their services in the establishment of the proletarian utopia. (...)
For Burovsky and many outsiders, the internal political wars within the Soviet Union seemed more like the falling out of a gang of thieves who had stolen the Russian Empire and who were now fighting over the spoils. And thieves they were. Having first hijacked the country and then looted the Russian banks and citizens of their wealth, Lenin, Trotsky, Radek, Kollontai, Dzerzhinsky, and a host of other non-Russians accumulated fortunes. Only Stalin refrained. Like Hitler, his future nemesis, Stalin lived quite modestly. The new Communist elite, however, lived exceedingly well, frequenting the elegant shops and government offices along Arbat Street, the Fifth Avenue of Moscow, where very few native Russians could afford to visit. (...)
Stalin, aside from his determination to eliminate any possible threat to his sole leadership, also feared that the Trotskyite approach would endanger Communism by alerting the capitalist countries to the threat it represented. Instead, he thought it would be much more prudent to first establish communism in Russia, protect and nurture it, and during this incubation period build the most powerful armed forces in the world ready to pounce on and take the countries of Europe at the most opportune time, namely, when the capitalist states were exhausted from the inevitable next world war. He therefore sought to remove all Trotskyite-infected and other potentially dangerous elements from the Soviet State in a major purge before that war occurred. This, according to Professor Burovsky, was the main reason for Stalin’s Purge of 1937 and 1938.
For Professor Burovsky the unending bitter political squabbles following the revolution were evidence that the Civil War waged between the White and Red Russians (1918–1922), between the former rulers and the usurpers, was simply followed by an internal civil war between communistic internationalist intellectuals who viewed the whole world as their oyster (Trotsky, Bukharin, Zinoviev, Kamenev, and the rest) and the more conservative, nationalistic Stalinists who favored stability. (...)
To be sure, Jews were prominent in both factions, but Stalin insisted their loyalty be directed exclusively to his concept of a “socialist” Soviet Union while their own interests and unrealistic goals be set aside. When, in his eyes, they did not comply, he had them killed.
Burovsky describes how the crimes committed by the usurpers of power in Russia far exceeded anything known to date, including even the French Revolution. During the usurpation of power in the revolution, no fewer than two million met their death. In the continuing period of the internal civil war, Burovsky estimates, 9–13 million eventually lost their lives. However, the crimes of the Lenin-Trotsky faction were either glossed over or simply not mentioned in the press or on the radio, while the Western media concentrated on and exaggerated those committed by Stalin during the “Great Purge.” Whereas the French Revolution had pitted Frenchmen against Frenchmen, and the American Revolution, Englishmen against Englishmen, the so-called Russian Revolution was entirely different. This was a case of minorities, mostly Jews, in the Empire usurping power from the majority Russians and destroying previously existing Russian elites.
According to Burovsky, the Leninists and Trotskyites made no secret of their intent to create a new world on the ashes of the old. In their anthem, The Song of the Destroyers, they sing:
We shall burn everything, we shall destroy everything,
We shall wipe everything from the face of the Earth,
We shall extinguish the old Sun,
We shall ignite a new Sun. (p. 155)
Lenin and Trotsky, Burovsky maintains, invented and practiced genocide freely in what they termed the “zoological milieu”, i.e., the Russian people, ruthlessly murdering entire layers of Russian society. As soon as members of the former ruling class (high government officials, generals, intellectuals, clergy, etc.) were eliminated, their positions were filled with Jewish revolutionaries. The children of the former upper classes were forbidden to attend the best schools and universities; only the children of the revolutionaries were granted access. According to Jewish World, 1939, Jews, representing 1.8% of the total population, constituted 20% of the students in higher institutes of learning in the USSR in 1939.[4] (p. 230)
The destruction of Christian civilization was high on Lenin and Trotsky’s hit list. All displays of Christian belief were outlawed. Churches were first looted of their art treasures and then converted into warehouses, theaters, recreation centers, and worse. Priests, nuns, and all other officers of the Church were either murdered or sent to the GULAG. Celebrations of Christmas, Easter, and Holy Days were forbidden. The icon corner in most Russian homes was banned. Because Jews were prominent among the new rulers and enforcers, all acts of anti-Semitism were made punishable by death. In a speech Trotsky announced the unveiling of the first statue in the world of Judas Iscariot, a man, the Communist leader said, who understood that Christianity was a phony religion and had the courage to break the bonds that bound him to it. Similar statues appeared in other cities. The people, however, could not protest because of the laws against anti-Semitism.
Burovsky proceeds to describe how the revolutionaries tried to gradually replace the civilization achieved in Russia under the Orthodox Church and the Czars with something entirely alien to the native people. Under the Czars Russia gave the world Pushkin, Dostoyevsky, Tolstoy, and other giants of literature. By way of contrast, the Communist regime produced a bevy of poets and short story writers. Burovsky singles out Osip Mandelshtam, Yevgenia Ginzburg, and Isaak Babel, who lent their services to the new regime. Mandelshtam, who was a friend of Bukharin, had worked in the ministry of education of the new regime. Babel had actually served in the Jewish-dominated Cheka for many years and wrote almost autobiographically about his experiences in his stories. He was also the mentor of Ilya Ehrenburg, World War II’s most notorious propagandist. Both enjoyed life and indulged in the pleasures of the Arbat. Both were executed in Stalin’s 1937 counter-revolution. Burovsky and the mass of Russian people would maintain that they got what they deserved.
Under the Czars and the Orthodox Church Russia gave the world the paintings of Repin, Rublov, and other such immortals. The Communist regime, on the other hand, introduced abstract “art” produced by such worthies as Kandinsky, Malevich, Altman, Chagall, Shterenburg, and other such. Again, Stalin, like Hitler, preferred socialist realism in art. Whatever the objective merits of the works produced by the artists and literary figures in the early Soviet Union, they reflected the Jewish, not the Russian spirit.
Proceeding then to Stalin’s purge of the Red Army leadership and the NKVD, Burovsky finds much to be applauded. Although Generals Zhukov and Rokossovsky believed that Stalin’s purge had broken the spine of the Red Army and was responsible for the losses in the first years of World War II, Burovsky leans more to the views expressed by Viktor Suvorov in his book The Purge,[5] namely that the purge or cleansing actually improved the Red Army by removing toxic and incompetent elements. Moreover, Trotsky, as first head of the Army and Navy, had appointed many of the top military leaders. Obviously, Stalin considered them tainted and their loyalty to him questionable.[6]
Stalin purged the organs of State security (Cheka, NKVD), notoriously Jewish strongholds, with a particularly heavy and rough brush. According to Burovsky, about 20,000 members of these organs were purged, including almost all the leaders of the Dzerzhinski era: A. Kh. Artuzov, G. I. Boky, M. Ya. Latsis, M. S. Kedrov, V. N. Mantsev, G. S. Moroz, I. P. Pavlunovsky, Ya. Kh. Peters, M. A. Trilisser, I. S. Unshlikht, and V. V. Fomin. Of this Burovsky comments: “It would be difficult to imagine a more repulsive, criminal, and dangerous group of people.” (Diky, p. 240) (...)
As for the crimes attributed to and indeed committed by Stalin, author Burovsky contends that had any of his political adversaries achieved total power, the crime levels would have even been higher. After all, it was Lenin and Trotsky, not Stalin, who laid the cruel and bloody foundations of Communist rule in Russia. The secret police organization, the Cheka, the predecessor and model for the later NKVD and sister agencies, were established in December 1917, as was the GULAG. Literally, armies of secret police ensured that the GULAG would not want for slave labor. In 1919, at the onset of the Civil War (1917–1922) Trotsky was made Peoples Commissar of Army and Navy, head of the Red Army. For a decade in that and other high posts Trotsky was in a prime position to fill the armed forces and government with his own people, mostly Jews, often despite Stalin’s disapproval. During the same period Stalin by virtue of his position as Party Secretary, a less prominent but equally important position, had also been putting his own people in critical posts. In 1929, after Lenin’s death, Stalin finally succeeded in exiling Trotsky, but the shadow of his competitor for leadership lingered on in the persons and policies of the government. Thus, the Communist Party and state in the late 1930s still remained, as most objective observers noted, essentially Jewish.
For example, in 1937 almost without exception the plenipotentiaries (ambassadors) of the Soviet Union to the rest of the world were Jews: Maisky in England, Surits in France, Yurenev in Germany, Shtein in Italy, and Rubinin in Belgium. The Soviet Delegates to the League of Nations were with one exception Jews: Finkelshtein-Litvinov, Rozenberg, Shtein, Markus, Brenner, Girshfeld, Galfand, and Svanidze who was Georgian. Litvinov was also head of the Commissariat of Foreign Affairs. (Diky, p. 222)
At the time of the Spanish Civil War (1936-1939), the Soviet Ambassador was Marcel Rozenberg; the military attaché was Lvovich (pseudonym Loti). The Red Army officers commanding the international brigades were: Division Commander Lazar Shtein (Emil Kleber); other Jewish commanders were Grigori Shtein (Grigorovich), Corps CommanderYakov Smushkevich (Duglas), Red Army General Batkin (Fritz), and others. Abram Slutsky (Chernigovsky), head of the Soviet Foreign Intelligence Service, NKVD, also came and joined with resident NKVD agent General Aleksandr Orlov who supervised a private jail in Alkalade. (Diky, p. 223)
Despite Stalin's purges, there were three million Jews living in the Soviet Union in 1939. By early 1941, following the division of Poland and pursuant to population-transfer provisions of the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact, there were 5.4 million Jews inside the USSR. Operation Barbarossa, the German attack on Russia occurred on 22 June 1941 when half the Jews in Poland were under the protection of the Red Army.
Burovsky notes that the end goal of both devils, Stalin and Trotsky, was the same — world communism, but the means chosen by Trotsky to achieve it would have caused worldwide mayhem and countless millions more deaths. It was not long after the purge that Stalin succeeded in having Trotsky himself murdered in 1940 in Mexico by which time war had already broken out in Europe. In the same year of 1940 the Anti-Comintern Pact was signed by a dozen nations with the statement,
recognizing that the aim of the Communist International, known as the Comintern [Trotsky’s organization] is to disintegrate and subdue existing states by all means at its command; convinced that the toleration of interference by the Communist International in the internal affairs of the nations not only endangers their internal peace and social well-being, but is also a menace to the peace of the world desirous of co-operating in the defense against Communist subversive activities.
Countries signing the Pact were: Germany, Japan, China (Nanjing), Italy, Denmark, Finland, Spain, Hungary, Romania, Bulgaria, Slovakia, Croatia, and Turkey.
The United States, Great Britain, and France abstained from and even objected to the Pact, believing (or saying they believed) Germany to be the greatest threat. The line between the Axis powers and the Western Allies in World War II was thereby drawn. It would take the West fifty years to correct this mistake.
Soon after World War II and the founding of the state of Israel, Stalin, following a policy of Russification and rejuvenation of the victorious Communist State, attempted once again to reduce the number and power of Jews in the Soviet Union. To this end, he planned another purge, one that would necessarily involve many of his old Jewish comrades. Before he could implement his plan, he was dead. Officially the Soviet leader was reported to have died a natural death, but many speculate that he was killed by the people he had planned to kill.[8]
The devil’s advocate, author Burovsky, rests his case in the defense of Stalin with the words:
Of course Stalin’s regime was awful! But in politics it is very often necessary to choose, not between the good and the better, but between the bad and the worse. The alternatives to Stalin would have been even worse nightmares.…The entire history of the USSR may be seen as an attempt to establish a utopia, and the civil war as the rejection of the utopia by the people.… Like Mandelshtam and Ginzburg, the “children of the Arbat” had not the slightest reason to repent; nor the slightest interest in whom they destroyed…. It is a pity that Stalin did not have another 10 years of life in which to say, like Napoleon, “the revolution is over”, but we can be especially grateful that Stalin killed the revolutionary bastards, the foul-smelling fungi that accumulated on Arbat Street and that he prevented the fungus from spreading to the rest of  Russia and the world. That which has gone down in history as “1937” was in fact the most brilliant and glorious event in the Stalin era. Farewell Comrade Stalin! Thank you! (Burovsky, pp. 280,  284–285)
The verdict for Stalin, according to Professor Burovsky, must be “not guilty” because of mitigating circumstances. The events and crimes so described and attributed to Stalin must be seen as simply ugly episodes of ongoing criminal violence perpetrated by one gangster against another.

Endnotes:

[1] “Glorious 1937!”, Zavtra, 9 September 1997. The Russian national heroes are: General Aleksandr Suvorov, General Mikhail Kutuzov, Admiral Pavel Nakhimov, and Admiral Fyodor Ushakov. The Knight in the Tiger’s skin is Prince Tariel of India, from the famous Georgian poem Vephkhviskhaosani. [4] Andrei Diky. 200 Years Together: Jews in Russia and the USSR. Algoritm Publishing, Moscow, 2010, 320 p.
[5] Suvorov uses the Russian word ischishchenie instead of the usual chistka for “purge.” The former has more the meaning of “cleansing” or the removal of toxic, dangerous elements; the later has more the meaning of total housecleaning. Robert Conquest preferred to use the expression The Great Terror rather than The Great Purge. Like so many of his contemporaries at Oxford, Conquest himself joined the Communist Party in “glorious 1937.”
[6] Dan Michaels. Stalin’s 1937 Purge of the Red Army. The Barnes Review, No. 3, 2000, pp. 49-55.
[8] Dan Michaels [aka as Robert Logan]. Was Stalin Assassinated? The Barnes Review, No. 4, 2003, pp. 35-40.






Extrait de The Judas Goats — The Enemy Within par Michael Collins Piper (p.148-154):


On September 15, 1969, writing in the popular American nationalist newspaper, Common Sense, which had, over the years, frequently featured the works of outspoken Jewish-born American anti-Zionist spokesman Benjamin Freedman, one Morris Horton (under his pen name “Fred Farrell”) wrote a fascinating assessment of the reality of Trotskyite Communism. Horton wrote in part:
Originally “Communism” was nothing but a tool of the wealthy American Jews of New York. In the United States, and in much of the rest of the world, it is still just that. Let us now address ourselves to a question important to anyone who really wants to understand Communism: “What is the difference between a Stalinist and a Trotskyite? Some people will tell you:“All Communists are alike.”
This is a dangerous piece of shallow misinformation. It is acceptable only if you are willing to substitute shallow sloganeering for real knowledge. A Stalinist represents primordial Russian nationalism. A Trotskyite represents the Jewish interests of New York City. The Jewish interests of New York suffered a terrific setback one day many years ago, when a taciturn hood planted an ax in Leon Trotsky’s skull in a villa in Mexico.
The world Communist conspiracy is not a Russian conspiracy; it is an American Jewish conspiracy. Today it is falling into great disrepute around the world. America is being blamed for supporting communism around the world.
Unhappily, the charge is true. New York is the real hub of the conspiracy. If some of our Anti-Communists would stand up four square and tell this plain truth, we might possibly yet be liberated from Jewish misrule.
Few of them ever do. Most of the Communists and many of the Anti-Communists are on the same payroll, the Jewish payroll. They carry on a sham battle with each other. The first basic rule of this sham battle is:“Never drag any real truth into the matter on either side; tell anything else you want to tell, but never tell the truth.” This is the basic background of most of the phony “experts” on Communism who have been “experting” about it for forty years and haven’t made a dent in it.
Horton was particularly adamant in pointing out that the American “anti-Communist” movement was increasingly falling into the hands of very real Communists—the Trotskyites—who in the guise of “fighting Communism” were actually working to introduce it into the American system. This is a point that few anti-communists understood then and even today they find it difficult to digest. Horton wrote:
These people generate the literature on Communism that is generally available to the American public. They have
no interest in providing any genuinely valid information. Their aim is to manipulate public opinion.
Therefore, they seek to divide the Gentile. They seek to make the middle class believe that the working class is allied to Red Russia; All of this is, and always was, pure hallucination, generated by Jewish intellectual quacks in order to promote a minority tyranny over the American Majority.
In his essay, Horton emphasized that the age-old labels of “Right” and “Left” no longer had any real meaning—a point that even many legitimate and self-styled modern-day American “conservatives” of the 21st century have yet to realize:
There is no genuine validity in either the “Right” or “Left” positions in politics.These are artificial, Jew-invented positions. Jewish control of communications is absolutely essential to the success of this power system. Jewish political quackery would not long survive exposure.
The Right-Left Age is the Jewish Age, and it is an age which, on the world stage, is now receding into the past. If America continues to live in this Jewish past, then America has no future.
Horton’s words—written nearly 50 years ago—continue to reverberate. But to drive home the point further, it is worth reviewing a translation of an analysis of Zionism published in Spanish in the November 4, 1979 edition of Granma, the official newspaper voice of the communist regime of Cuba’s Fidel Castro.
(Similar versions of this had previously appeared in the Soviet Union, at a time when there were increasing public noises against Zionism, much to the dismay of the American Trotskyites who were then reinventing themselves as “the neo-conservatives.”)
While this analysis from the communist point of view has been superceded by the collapse of the Soviet empire as it existed when this document was first published, it contains fascinating insights into the sources of tension between Zionism and Communism.
The Zionist movement, created by the Jewish big bourgeoisie at the end of the 19th century, was born with a decidedly counterrevolutionary purpose. From the founding of the World Zionist Organization in 1897 to the present, Zionism, as ideology and political practice, has opposed the world revolutionary process.
Zionism is counterrevolutionary in a global sense in that it acts the world over against the three major forces of revolution: the socialist community, the working class movement in capitalist countries and the movement for national liberation.
Zionist counterrevolution began by making inroads in the European working class movement. In the early years, when the growth of monopoly capitalism and the expansion of reactionary tendencies that accompanied the establishment of the imperialist phase of capitalism demanded the unity and solidarity of the proletariat, the Zionists focused on dividing the working class.
They propagated the thesis that all non-Jews were, and would always be, anti-Semites; asserted that the only possibility for the Jewish masses’ well-being and justice was to emigrate to the “promised land”; and defended class collaboration, thus diverting the Jewish proletariat away from the struggle for their real emancipation and dividing and weakening the working class movement. It’s not fortuitous that in czarist police archives one finds documents calling for support for the Zionist movement as a way of stemming the tide of proletarian revolution.
Theodore Herzl, the founder of Zionism, wrote at the time in his diary:“All our youth; all those who are from 20 to 30 years old, will abandon their obscure socialist tendencies and come over to me.”
However, the efforts of Zionist counter-revolution could not hold back the wheels of history.The victory of the Great October Socialist Revolution in Russia ushered in a period of transition from capitalism to socialism on a world scale. The first victory of the proletariat, the premise of future victories, was a heavy blow to Zionism.
Most of the money that filled Zionist coffers came from Russia, where czarism had humiliated and oppressed the Jews for centuries. Russia provided a million immigrants for the Zionist colonization of Palestine. When the Russian Revolution liquidated the exploitation of man by man, it also destroyed the basis for Zionism in the Soviet Union.
Leninist policy on the national question toppled all Zionist myths that the Jews could not be fully incorporated, with equal rights, into society and destroyed all the racist claims on the inevitability of anti-Semitism. The Zionists never did, and never will, forgive the Soviet state and its Leninist Party, not so much for cutting off the money flow from Russia and for the loss of workers for the colonization effort, but because the Bolsheviks implemented a correct policy that incorporated the talents and efforts of the Soviet Jews into the tasks of building a new society and thus demonstrated the class origins of discrimination and anti-Semitism, breaking with the past and providing a genuine solution to the Jewish problem, a solution which was not and could never be a massive exodus to Palestine.
Zionist counterrevolution took on an anti-Soviet thrust. Before October 1917 the Zionists collaborated with Kerensky. Later they supported all the attempts at counter-revolution and enthusiastically participated in the different white “governments” set up in different parts of the country during the Civil War [in Russia].They were active in all the moves against the Soviet Union from abroad, and their powerful propaganda machine spread a spate of lies about the first workers’ and peasants’ state in the world.
Not even the Soviet victory over German fascism, which saved so many Jewish lives, made the Zionists change their anti-Soviet stand.
With the outbreak of the cold war the Zionists collaborated in all the subversive and diversionary activities against the USSR and other socialist countries. The secret services of the Zionist state of Israel coordinated their spy activities with the CIA. Zionist agents played an active role in the counter-revolutionary attempts in Hungary and Czechoslovakia.
Today Zionism seconds the hypocritical anti-Soviet campaign on presumed violations of the human rights of Jews in the Soviet Union and does all it can to put pressure on Soviet citizens of Jewish origin so they will leave their true homeland and go to Israel.This effort by Zionist counter-revolution can only lead to new failures. And to complete the picture there is the Zionist counter-revolutionary action against the national liberation movements.
Soon after World War I, Zionist settlers penetrated into Palestinian territory, acting as the spearhead of British imperialist interests in opposition to the Arab peoples’ hopes for independence. Their role was clearly spelled out by the prominent Zionist leader Max Nordau in a statement to the British authorities:
“We know what you want from us: that we defend the Suez Canal.We must defend your route to India which passes through the Middle East.We are ready to take on that difficult task. But you must allow us to become powerful enough to carry out that task.”
And, as a matter of fact, the Zionists became a power and succeeded in establishing their own state in 1948: the Zionist state of Israel. Now their task is to defend oil routes, protect all the interests of U.S. imperialism and block the advance of the Arab revolution.
Backed by tremendous amounts of imperialist economic and military aid, the Zionists are constantly acting against national liberation movements.
At one time it was their mission to penetrate African and Asian independence movements, guarantee that the newly independent states followed paths acceptable to imperialism, that they not stray from the confines of neo-colonialism. Israel offered courses, advisers, all sorts of aid.
But the ploy wasn’t very successful. Israel’s increasing role as imperialism’s policeman in the Middle East, its racism and avowed expansionism made the young African and Asian nations see the dangers of Israeli “aid,”the treachery of Israeli foreign policy.
Nevertheless, the Zionist state took up a new role in the struggle of world reaction against progress. It went beyond the geographical confines of the Middle East, established friendly ties with all reactionary regimes and began to supply arms, equipment and advisers to those who were trying to suppress national liberation struggles.
The Israeli armaments industry specialized in designing and producing all sorts of weapons for urban and rural anti-guerrilla warfare.
The South African racist regime, the dictatorships of Guatemala and El Salvador, and the fascist Pinochet are among the best clients of the Israeli armaments industry.
Israeli arms sales in 1978 were estimated at $400 million.
One of their best clients was the Nicaraguan dictator Anastasio Somoza.
Zionist counter-revolution was present in Somoza’s Nicaragua in the form of Galil guns and Pull-push planes, but they couldn’t stop the victory of the Sandinista revolutionaries.
This is a symbol of our times: neither the machinations of Zionist counterrevolution, nor Israeli arms, can hold back the victorious march of the peoples of the world.
(END OF THE GRANMA ARTICLE)

THE JUDAS GOATS
THE ENEMY WITHIN
Michael Collins Piper

The “Israelization” of America
Judas Goat Number One: George W. Bush—
Shill for Zionist Theoretician Natan Sharansky:
Planning for Global War in the Name of “Democracy”

President George W. Bush may well rank—by virtue of his high office—as perhaps America’s most insidious and most dangerous Judas Goat. His role in guiding America into the war in Iraq—not to mention his lead part in covering up the truth about the forces behind the 9-11 attack on America—has cast him as a veritable Enemy Within-in-Chief, so to speak. Now he urges America to fight another war against Iran.
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.



03/26/03
by Ariel Natan Pasko

[Traduction: Arrêtez-vous et réfléchissez un moment: la dernière Guerre du Golfe en 1991 s'est terminée le jour d'erev - juste avant - Pourim . La présente Guerre en Irak a débuté le jour de motzei - juste après - Shushan Pourim.]

Stop and think for a moment: the last Gulf War in 1991 ended erev - just before - Purim. This Gulf War began motzei - just after - Shushan Purim. Get the picture? In between, "The Jews had light, and gladness, and joy, and honor." (Book of Esther 8:16)

Of course this war against Iraq and Saddam Hussein is for us. Even the anti-Semites, like Patrick J. Buchanan and Congressman Jim Moran know it. (...)

However, we already knew that this war is for us - i.e., the Jews and Israel. Chazal - our sages - throughout the ages have explained the Torah, telling us that everything that happens in the world is for the benefit of the Jewish People.

(...)Read the Purim story in Megilat Esther again, it is a rags to riches story on a national scale. Haman, the proto-typical anti-Semite, plans mass murder of the Jews and in the end pays with his life, the life of his ten sons - all hanged - and the Jews kill 75, 800 members of the anti-Semitic - i.e. Nazi - party of the time.

This is not so different from the Nuremberg Trials after World War II, when 23 Nazi war criminals were tried. Originally 11 were to have the death penalty imposed if found guilty. Everybody in those days thought that they would be shot - as is customary in military executions - or get the electric chair - as was common in the United States. But when the judges announced the verdict of guilty, they also said that hanging would be the method of execution. Two hours before the execution, they found Hermann Goering dead in his cell. He had committed suicide. That left only 10 Nazis to execute.

There is more to this story than meets the eye. In Megilat Esther (9:7-9), when it describes the execution of Haman's ten sons, their names are listed in a vertical column. If you look at the Hebrew closely, you'll notice extra-small letters in three of the names. The first name, Parshandata, has a small tav. The seventh name, Parmashta, has a small shin. The tenth name, Vayzata, has a small zayn. Hebrew letters are also used as numbers, as well as for dates in the Jewish calendar. Tav, shin, zayn numerically means 707, corresponding to the year 5707, which began with Rosh HaShanah - the Jewish New Year - on September 25, 1946. On October 16, 1946, as foreshadowed in the names of Haman's ten sons, ten Nazi leaders were hanged as war criminals. And if that doesn't impress you, out of nowhere, with the rope around his neck, Julius Schtreicher - editor of Der Sturmer, the Nazi propaganda newspaper - shouted out with flaming hatred in his eyes, just as the trap door opened, "Purimfest 1946!" It was reported in the international press of the day.

As I said earlier, of course this war is for the Jews and Israel, and instead of hiding from the accusation, or crying, "anti-Semitic slur", we should gratefully acknowledge what the Master of the Universe is doing to our enemies for us. Saddam Hussein, Yasser Arafat, Bashar Assad, Osama Bin-Laden, and the other dictators, terrorists and mullahs of the region, are the modern day Hamans and Hitlers.(...)

Yes, the war is for the Jews.
But it is also for all decent, peace-loving and freedom-loving people. Just as when the Jews were saved from Egyptian slavery, liberated, given the Torah at Mt. Sinai, and brought into the Holy Land, the world now has a great opportunity to rid itself of the Hamans, Hitlers, and Pharaohs who want to kill or enslave them today. (lire la suite...)



Rabbis: Purim, Iraq war linked
by Joe Berkofsky · March 18, 2003

(...) Blu Greenberg, an Orthodox feminist leader based in New York, supports the Bush administration’s campaign against Iraq as a “preventive war,” much as the ancient Jews defended themselves against Haman’s plot to destroy them.(...)

Rabbi Martin Weiner of San Francisco, outgoing president of the Reform movement’s rabbinical union, the Central Conference of American Rabbis, used Shabbat Zachor to draw a line from Amalek to Hitler to Saddam. A modern-day Amalek, Saddam has attacked four of his neighbors, gassed tens of thousands of his own people and pays stipends to suicide bombers, Weiner said, so “it’s terribly important to remove him.” Last September, Weiner was among those who backed a resolution from the Reform movement’s Union of American Hebrew Congregations urging a pre-emptive strike against Iraq, if Congress supported it and U.N. backing was sought. But for Reform Rabbi Don Rossoff, of Temple B’nai Or in Morristown, N.J., Amalek casts a very different shadow. Rossoff said he has refrained from publicly sermonizing this Purim about the war, which he opposes, because he is “haunted by Baruch Goldstein, who called the Arabs Amalek.” Goldstein, a doctor in an Israeli settlement near the West Bank city of Hebron, shot to death 29 Palestinians praying in Hebron’s Tomb of the Patriarch on Purim Day in 1994. Saddam is “a tyrannical, murderous dictator” who “ would probably wipe out Israel if he could,” Rossoff added. “But he’s not the only one around. His name just starts with ‘H,’ ” like Haman.(...)


http://www.lefigaro.fr/medias/2007/12/18/20071218PHOWWW00156.jpg
Pendaison de Saddam "Haman" Hussein

Pendaison du légendaire Haman

http://www.davidduke.com//images/jewish-children-beating-and-hanging-haman.jpg
La mise à mort d'Haman: une activité pour toute la famille




mars 4, 2013 
mounadil.blogspot.com
 
Ran HaCohen propose un papier sur la fête juive de Pourim qui est l’occasion pour les fidèles de se déguiser mais aussi de se saouler la gueule, ce qui serait d’après lui une des obligations liées à cette fête.
Toujours d’après Ran HaCohen, La fête de Pourim est intrinsèquement associée à la violence, celle qu’auraient subie les Juifs d’après le Livre d’Esther et celle que les Juifs auraient pour obligation d’infliger à leurs ennemis identifiés à Amalek/Haman.
Cette obligation allant jusqu’à l’extermination, Dieu faisant même le reproche à Saül d’avoir péché en épargnant le roi Agag qui aurait été un ancêtre d’Haman, le vizir de l’empereur Perse qui avait comploté pour exterminer les Juifs.
Ran HaCohen rappelle justement que certains actes de violence contre les palestiniens coïncident avec la fête de Pourim  tel le massacre perpétré à Hébron aux cris de  Joyeux Pourim» par Baruch Goldstein en 1994.
Si vous vous intéressez à ce salmigondis théologique, je pense que vous trouverez pas mal d’éléments sur la toile ou dans n’importe quelle bibliothèque municipale.
Quant à moi, je ne souhaite pas creuser présentement cet aspect mais simplement vous traduire le passage que Ran HaCohen consacre à une vidé éducative produite par le grand rabbinat de l’armée sioniste pour expliquer Pourim aux jeunes recrues.

On comprend mieux pourquoi l’armée sioniste est la plus morale du monde.
Elle [la vidéo] commence par exposer une évidence, c’est-à-dire que la Perse est l’Iran actuel ; parmi les images qui clignotent à certains moments quand le nom d’Haman est mentionné, on voit non seulement Ahmadinejad mais aussi Nasrallah le chef du Hezbollah ainsi que, à plusieurs reprises, Hitler et, oui, Jésus Christ qui fait une brève apparition.
Dans une réécriture sans fondement de la légende, qui vise à clairement les palestiniens d’aujourd’hui, Haman et ses fils sont présentés comme ayant vécu dans la terre d’Israël où ils prêchaient la haine contre les Juifs et exigeaient l’arrêt de la construction à Jérusalem (!) avant de partir s’installer en Perse qui est le lieu de l’action du Livre d’Esther.
En d’autres termes, la vidéo “éducative” de l’armée trace un continuum de Haman à Jésus puis à l’Allemagne nazie et à l’Iran actuel et au Hezbollah ainsi qu’aux palestiniens contemporains. Et Haman, ce que la vidéo ne s’embarrasse même pas à rappeler à son public, est Amalek, l’ennemi éternel des Juifs : «tu effaceras la mémoire d’Amalek de dessous les cieux, n’oublie pas.»
Tags : , , , , , , ,



BY RAN HACOHEN
Purim. One of the most popular Jewish holidays among Orthodox, traditional and so-called secular Jewish Israelis alike. The streets are packed with children and adults wearing costumes, make-up and all sorts of masquerading, on their way from one joyous Purim party to the next. Happy days. But behind the carnivalesque masks, ominous demons are lurking.
Tel Aviv, Sunday, February 24th
Hanan Usruf, a 40-year-old Arab sanitation worker for the city, was savagely beaten by some dozen Jewish men. The Jerusalem Post reported that Usruf’s injuries
include a fracture in his right eye socket and deep lacerations on his right ear and across almost his entire head. His vision is blurred in his left eye, but he can make out small numbers and letters, doctors said.
The Times of Israel added that the victim – an Israeli citizen, one should add – attacked by “drunken youth” required dozens of stitches and that doctors were doing their best to save his eye; under his horrendous photo in hospital, Usruf is quoted saying that
the youths kicked him and broke bottles on his head while shouting racial epithets at him. “They shouted things like ‘f**kin’ Arab’ and ‘get your own country.’
Jerusalem, Monday, February 25th
Hana Amtir, an Arab woman standing at the tram stop near the central bus station, was attacked by a group of young Jewish women. AFP quotes a (Jewish) eyewitness who took pictures of the attack and documented it on Facebook:
Suddenly shouts were heard, and a group of young religious Jewish women confronted the woman and suddenly a young Jewish woman punched her in the head, […] the rest then joined in, hitting and shoving the Arab woman. The woman tried to fight them off but they shouted at her not to dare touch Jews and they continued as a group to attack her and even forcibly pulled off her head covering, […] the incident was witnessed by a security guard from the rail company and a group of ultra-Orthodox Jewish students who stood by and did nothing.
Framing
Both events – the lynch in Tel Aviv and the attack in Jerusalem – were reported widely in the Israeli media (separately or eventogether [Hebrew]), justly framed as hate crimes, sometimes with reference to similar crimes in the recent past. Some public protest followed – a demonstration, petitions and op-eds. However, no report I’ve seen mentioned the fact that both crimes were committed on Purim (24.2), a one-day holiday that lasts a day longer in Jerusalem (24-25.2). At best, one could find the holiday mentioned in passing, for instance in the Times of Israelthat also described the Tel Aviv victimizers as drunken: “Police had yet to make any arrests […] After detaining suspects, the police will determine whether the attack was racially motivated, or the action of out-of-hand Purim revelers,” as if racist motivation and Purim revelry were mutually exclusive. But as a rule, Purim was simply ignored as irrelevant.
Is the Jewish holiday really irrelevant? The notion that the attackers were drunken can be easily traced back to the religious duty to get drunk on Purim. But that’s just the tip of the iceberg. Purim has been identified with Jewish violence (and with accusations of violence against Jews, true or false) for centuries. Just think of the West Bank town of Hebron for example: it was Purim 1981 when Jewish settlers brought down the roof over an Arab upholstery in “Beit Hadassah”, expelling its owner and taking over the house, a crucial step in what has since developed into a full-fledged ethnic cleansing at the heart of the Palestinian town. The settlers’ Purim parades in that city have become a tradition of provocations, with Jewish violence escalating from year to year – culminating in Purim 1994, when a Jewish settler massacred 29 and injured 125 Muslim worshippers in the Cave of the Patriarchs. The butcher joined the settlers’ hall of fame: “Purim in Hebron after 1994 was like Purim in Hebron since 1981, only more so – with a new Jewish hero for Jewish children to dress up as,” writes Israeli historian Prof Elliott Horowitz in his excellent Reckless Rites: Purim and the Legacy of Jewish Violence (2006, p. 8), that documents the roots and history of Jewish Purim violence (alongside with its anti-Semitic abuses by Christians) from ancient times to the present.
Why Purim?
Like any legacy stretching from the Ancient World through the Middle Ages to Modern Times, Judaism is a multifaceted culture: it can be universal as well as nationalist; egalitarian as well as racist; liberal, even revolutionary as well as ultra-conservative – all these messages can be found in it. Among other things, Purim, however, has always reflected deep genocidal phantasies of revenge. The Book of Esther, the textual basis for this holiday, tells the story of the miraculous saving of the Jews of Persia from their enemies, most notably the evil Haman. It ends with the hanging of Haman by the Persian King. Consequently, the Jews take revenge and kill Haman’s ten sons, murder several hundreds of non-Jews in the capital Susa, and then massacre seventy-five thousand non-Jews all over Persia. That’s how the Book of Esther ends. The (probably non-existent) historical foundations of these events are irrelevant: it’s the myth and the memory that matter.
The genocidal roots of Purim go even deeper: Haman, as the short Book of Esther repeatedly stresses, is an “Agagite”, that is, an offspring of Agag. Agag was the King of the ancient Amalekites, the archetypal enemy of the Jews, on which the Bible commands to inflict genocide: “you shall blot out the remembrance of Amalek from under heaven; do not forget” (Deuteronomy 25,19). When King Saul sins by sparing King Agag’s life, God regrets He had made him king of Israel, and Prophet Samuel “hews Agag in pieces before the Lord” (I Samuel 15,33).
These are not just idle interpretations for the learned or deep secrets known to the few; it’s all anchored in the liturgical practice of Purim. While the public reading of the Book of Esther is at the heart of the holiday itself, the Torah-text on blotting out Amalek is read in synagogue on the “Sabbath of Remembrance”, the last Saturday before Purim.Once the Arabs are seen as Haman/Amalek, Purim turns into a carneval of incitement against them.
Educating Israeli Soldiers
The Chief Rabbinate of the Israeli army has recently produced ashort video (in Hebrew) to “explain” Purim to Israeli soldiers. It opens by stating the obvious, namely that Persia is today’s Iran; among the images that flash every now and then when Haman is mentioned we see not only Ahmadinejad, but also Hezbollah’s leader Nasrallah, as well as (several times) Hitler, and, yes, Jesus Christ, who also makes a brief appearance. In a baseless rewriting of the legend, obviously aimed against present-day Palestinians, Haman and his sons are said to have resided in the Land of Israel, where they were inciting against the Jews and demanding to stop construction in Jerusalem(!) before moving to Persia, where the Book of Esther takes place.
In other words, the army “educational” video draws a line from Haman to Jesus, to Nazi Germany, to today’s Iran and Hezbollah, as well as to the present-day Palestinians. And Haman, as the video doesn’t even bother to remind its viewers, is Amalek, the eternal enemy of the Jews: “you shall blot out the remembrance of Amalek from under heaven, do not forget.”
From Hebron to Tel Aviv
It’s truly amazing that the Israeli media ignored the Purim context of the violent events in Tel Aviv and Jerusalem. Jewish Israelis are witnessing a trend of “rediscovering of” and “reconnecting to” their “Jewish roots”. In such an atmosphere, one would expect those “rediscoverers” to be aware the Jewish context of the violence: after all, this is also part of the Jewish legacy they are allegedly so fond of. But no: instead of coming to terms with the lights and shadows of the rich Jewish tradition, non-Orthodox Israelis fall prey to ominous Jewish demons without even noticing them, demons that have enjoyed an uninterrupted existence among Orthodox Jews like the radical settlers of Hebron, but have now sneaked even into “secular” Tel Aviv.




Michael Collins Piper, YE SHALL KNOW THE TRUTH
(...)