mercredi 19 mars 2014

William Kristol, fauteur de guerre juif, roi du PNAC néocon, appelle à "défier l'idole de la fatigue de guerre" en se préparant et en se mobilisant pour la guerre

 


William Kristol est le fils du fondateur des néoconservateurs, Irving Kristol, alias Neo, un ex-trotskiste juif, dont l'anti-communisme consistait en fait surtout à éliminer toute base de soutien à Staline et à l'Union soviétique après Staline. Cette haine était surtout basée sur le fait que le contrôle de l'expérience communiste en Russie avait échappé aux mains des juifs et que, sous Staline, le gouvernement communiste s'était retourné contre les révolutionnaires juifs fortunés et tous leurs laquais (car ce sont bien ces lunatiques et non Staline qui inventèrent le Goulag et la Tchéka, ancêtre du KGB) pour en même temps remettre à la mode les idées nationalistes.

Entre autres occupations, William Kristol dirige son propre journal, en plus d'avoir joué un rôle de premier plan dans la mise sur pied du think tank du PNAC (incluant les signataires Kagan, Gaffney, Zelikow, Perle, Wolfowitz, Cheney, Zakheim, Rosen, "Scooter" Libby, Cohen, Abrams, Pipes). Il est également derrière l'Emergency Committee for Israel, qui se veut le plus pro-Israël des lobbys pro-Israël et qui a vicieusement attaqué des personnalités politiques telles que Ron Paul (contrairement à son fils Rand) et Chuck Hagel.

Dans son dernier article en date où il exprime sa frustration face au refus des Américains de repartir en guerre pour le moindre prétexte, William Kristol défend l'article "America's Global Retreat" paru dans le Wall Street Journal (de Newscorp=Rupert Murdoch), écrit par l'historien biographe des Rothschild, Niall Ferguson, critiquant la nouvelle image de faiblesse des États-Unis en accusant Obama d'en être le principal responsable. Ferguson est aussi un fervent de la théorie du complot d' "Eurabia" de la juive Bat Ye'Or, tout comme Martin Gilbert (le biographe juif de Churchill), et Daniel Pipes (le fils du gourou juif anti-soviet Richard Pipes et un protégé de Richard Perle devenu gourou de la théorie du complot djihadique).

Y. Kosharovsky, Nathan Sharansky and Martin Gilbert. E. Wurtman's apartment,Jerusalem,2004. Photo E. Wurtman
L'historien juif Melach (Martin) Gilbert, qui fut le biographe de personnalités politiques telles que Churchill, Tatcher et Blair, ne fut pas seulement un militant pro-Refuzniks anti-staliniens et anti-soviets, il fut également un chauvin partisan de la distopie anti-arabe et anti-islam appelée "Eurabia" inventée par la juive égyptienne "Bat Ye'or". Voir: Sir Martin Gilbert, a Jewish knight and hero of Soviet 'Refuseniks' For many Russian Jews, Gilbert was and will remain a champion for the right to emigrate from the Soviet Union and join the people of Israel – a right they were often refused.




Perle




Bill Kristol Calls For Americans to be ‘Awakened and Rallied’ to War
John Glaser, March 17, 2014


Bill Kristol is not shy about his fetish for war. His latest piece at the neoconservative Weekly Standard borders on self-parody in the way that it openly longs for a return to a time when Americans were eager to send the U.S. military off on unnecessary, imperialistic adventures.

Kristol is frustrated by the “war-weariness” of the nation. He laments the reluctance on the part of the Republican Party to “challenge” “the idol of war-weariness.”

“A war-weary public can be awakened and rallied,” Kristol cheers. “Indeed, events are right now doing the awakening. All that’s needed is the rallying. And the turnaround can be fast.”

People like Kristol are so blinded by ideology that they breach the etiquette which calls on elite commentators to camouflage their enthusiasm for war with superficial appeals to peace. He loves death and destruction and wars of choice and he doesn’t care who knows it! He is way out of the closet. That he can explicitly call for Americans to be “awakened and rallied” for new wars and not be embarrassed by the Hitler-esque tone of such despicable cravings is an indication of how lacking in self-awareness he is. His foreign policy beliefs are the kind that are not susceptible to reasoning or disconfirming evidence. His worship for the warfare state is religious in its persuasion.

Kristol condemns using war-weariness “as an excuse to avoid maintaining our defenses or shouldering our responsibilities.” In other words, the fact that Kristol’s preferred policies were implemented throughout the Bush administration and it led to war crimes, hundreds of thousands killed, trillions of dollars wasted, region-wide instability in the Middle East, and clear geo-political losses for the United States shouldn’t deter us from continuing to spend more than the rest of the world combined on our military or from “shouldering our responsibilities” of ruling the world through force and war.

To Kristol, war-weariness is a kind of ailment that Americans need to be cured of. He calls for war-weary Americans to be rallied to some unspecified military crusade just around the corner. Iran, Russia, China…anything will do, I suppose. (...)






http://www.weeklystandard.com/articles/war-weariness-excuse_784895.html#

War-Weariness As an Excuse

Mar 24, 2014, Vol. 19, No. 27 • By WILLIAM KRISTOL
Are Americans today war-weary? Sure. The Iraq and Afghanistan wars have been frustrating and tiring. Are Americans today unusually war-weary? No. They were wearier after the much larger and even more frustrating conflicts in Korea and Vietnam. And even though the two world wars of the last century had more satisfactory outcomes, their magnitude was such that they couldn’t help but induce a significant sense of war-weariness. And history shows that they did.
So American war-weariness isn’t new. Using it as an excuse to avoid maintaining our defenses or shouldering our responsibilities isn’t new, either. But that doesn’t make it admirable.
The March 5 Wall Street Journal featured a letter from Heidi Szrom of Valparaiso, Indiana. She was responding to an earlier letter defending President Obama’s foreign policies against a powerful critique in the Journal by the historian Niall Ferguson (“America’s Global Retreat”). The first letter writer noted Ferguson’s statement that more people may have died violent deaths in the Greater Middle East in the Obama years than under Bush, but excused Obama:
True, but it is also equally certain that fewer Americans have died violent deaths in the Greater Middle East during this presidency than during the previous one, and this is what matters more now to a war-weary American public.
To which Ms. Szrom responded: 
According to pundits, the president and letter writers, America is “war weary.” Every time I hear this, I wonder: Did you serve? Did you volunteer to fight oppression in foreign lands? Did your son or brother or husband? If so, then I understand and sympathize with your complaint .  .  . unlike most of those who utter this shopworn phrase.

4 Questions on Iran for Benjamin Netanyahu By J.J. Goldberg

Give War a Chance J.J. Goldberg digs deeper into the conflicting roles that Benjamin Netanyahu and Ariel Sharon played in George W. Bush’s disastrous war in Iraq — and what it means for Iran today.

How Bibi and Bush Made a Mess of the Middle East Misplaced Focus on Saddam's Iraq Tore Region Apar

A Reminder About Netanyahu, Iraq, and Iran

Netanyahu’s Secret Weapon

Charles Krauthammer Denies Neocons Exist as Foreign Policy Discussion Shifts (video)

Who cares what Jeffrey Goldberg and Netanyahu don’t like about the Iran deal?
Nowhere does the editorial question Netanyahu’s judgment: his use of the Iran issue to distract attention from the criminal occupation, his massacre in Gaza last summer, his crazy conflation of Iran and ISIS as Islamists seeking world “domination.”

The Victory of ‘Perception Management’ Special Report: In the 1980s, the Reagan administration pioneered “perception management” to get the American people to “kick the Vietnam Syndrome” and accept more U.S. interventionism, but that propaganda structure continues to this day getting the public to buy into endless war, writes Robert Parry.

2015 : Une année charnière pour des crises économiques et financières et des guerres ? Rodrigue Tremblay
De nos jours, des néoconservateurs (‘‘Neocons’) militaristes exercent un contrôle quasi complet sur le gouvernement américain derrière la façade de quiconque est le président en poste. En effet, on les retrouve derrière les politiques du Département d'État, du Pentagone, du Trésor américain et de la banque centrale américaine. Ils sont ainsi en mesure d'influencer et de dicter la politique étrangère, la politique militaire, les politiques économiques et financières et la politique monétaire des États-Unis.   Ce n’était guère le cas avant l’arrivée au pouvoir du gouvernement de Ronald Reagan (1981-1989) alors que celui-ci adopta une « politique étrangère dite musclée » d’inspiration neocon, laquelle reposait sur l'interventionnisme militaire américain à l'étranger, la guerre perpétuelle, les renversements arbitraires de gouvernements étrangers, et une gouvernance mondiale impériale exercée par les États Unis sur tout enjeu impliquant des intérêts américains et ceux de leurs alliés les plus proches.

Lest We Forget–Neoconservatives hype a new Cold War
Lobbyists wine and dine eager Washington journalists in a campaign to undo Obama’s “reset” on Russia

Les néo-conservateurs sont les personnes à surveiller de très, très près... par Robert Parry

Ron Paul: "Iraq war based on lies pushed by the rabidly pro-Israel neocons"

Dominique de Villepin et la 3ème guerre d’Irak

Les néocons, maîtres ou esclaves de l’hyper-désordre ?  Avant de passer à la thèse de Robert Parry, qui constitue l’argument initial et principal pour développer cette analyse, nous nous arrêtons à une courte rencontre entre RIA Novosti et Robert Kagan, le 18 octobre 2014.

VIDEO - Abby Martin Takes Down the Cold War-Obsessed Neocons Behind the Curtain

Israeli Defense Minister: U.S. Is Projecting ‘Weakness’ La faute d'Obama qui est pas assez "faucon" à leur goût!

Historic Defense Cuts By: Editorial Board
"Countries in the Middle East will likely think about following the recent example of the Egyptian government in moving closer to Russia at the expense of their ties to the United States. Israel’s neighbors, in addition to the Palestinians and Hizbullah, will make what they will of an America no longer able to provide Israel with the kind of qualitative and quantitative military backing the Israelis and their enemies have come to take for granted. (...) But equally at issue here is the kind of robust presence the U.S. will maintain around the world, as well as the responses the military would be able to muster given any number of potential crises. (...) But we cannot help but be uneasy with a White House that seems to be signaling a weariness with America’s traditional role in the world and a wish to unburden itself of the responsibilities of leadership. "
(Ça finit avec les juifs qui expriment leur grande peur que les USA abandonnent leur rôle de POLICE MONDIALE.)

Untwisting the revisionists' history: Stalin's Russia won WW2, not the Anglo-American alliance, and he tried to prevent Cold War

Chris Christie Apologizes to Sheldon Adelson for ‘Occupied Territories’ Remark, but wll it cost him the nomination?

Sheldon Adelson Wants Nuclear Strike on Iran — Says Two-States 'Russian Roulette'

Netanyahu presses Obama on Iranian nukes

‘Kosher Sex’ Rabbi Shmuley’s over-the-top gala     Sean Penn shines, while Chris Christie tries to placate Sheldon Adelson for saying 'occupied territories.'

Christie calls for more ‘aggressive’ foreign policy

What do Rick Perry, Sean Penn, Sheldon Adelson and Chris Christie have in common?
They all came together to honor and be honored at a gala benefit for Rabbi Shmuley Boteach, who describes himself as “America’s Rabbi.”

Israel better off with Arab tyrants  Op-ed: In the name of our egoistic interest, we only want dictators in our neighborhood. Let Washington deal with democracy and freedom of expression.
Quel aveu! C'est ça que je dis depuis longtemps. Israel veut juste des méchants arabes excités autour de lui, pour lui servir de repoussoir. Car si Israel est entouré d'États modérés et pleins de bon sens, c'est Israel qui passe pour le méchant.

‘Arab Spring opened a Pandora’s box of extreme Islamism’

McCain Warns Syrian Terrorist Will Reach U.S. Soil

Le rôle des États-Unis dans les révoltes de la rue arabe : le cas de l’Égypte

Le chaos en Irak: Le Nouveau Moyen-Orient en actes

"Chatham House" exhorte l’OTAN à étendre son royaume

NeoCon 'reality-creating': Paper published in 1982 by Israeli journalist describes exactly what's going on in Iraq, Syria and across the Middle East

US-Sponsored Terrorism in Iraq and “Constructive Chaos” in the Middle East La théorie du néocon antifasciste Michael Ledeen

ISIS seizes Saddam's WMD storage facility: British officials Encore les gros mensonges qui recommencent...

Is ‘Tony Cartalucci’ a fictional creation of Eric Draitser and/or Nile Bowie?
Described in his brief bio as “a Bangkok-based geopolitical researcher and writer,” has anyone ever met, spoken to, or even seen a photo of “Tony Cartalucci”? As readers of The Passionate Attachment are aware, I have long since been suspicious of the elusive Cartalucci for a number of reasons, not least of which is his blatant covering for the Israel Lobby

Pro-Israel groups urge Sir Martin Sorrell to boycott Iran trade talks

The Book of Gareth: Why Persians Should Never Sleep With Jewish Whores Ed note (Trevor) Thanks to Mark Dankof and others sharing my article exposing Gareth Porter’s underhanded attempt to harm Mark Glenn’s fine reputation and implicate the Iranian government into a phony scandal, it’s going viral and getting into the right hands, including those of Russian and Iranian officials, Press TV, Hungary’s Jobbik, and many others. It just goes to show you that when our enemies hand us lemons, the best thing to do is squeeze the lemons’ juice into their eyes and make them regret ever messing with us.
Michael Collins Piper: “What a masterpiece. It needs to be printed up as a monograph, with a glossy cover!”

US Propaganda “Accidentally” Exposes Nazi Crimes in Ukraine
The Interpreter Magazine is a “special project” of the Institute of Modern Russia. By “Modern Russia,” its creators mean, Russia as imagined by Wall Street and London. The “institute” is run by disgraced Russian billionaire oligarch, convicted criminal, and long-time Western proxy Mikhail Khodorkovsky, his son, andWashington lobbyists. It includes contributors such as Catherine A. Fitzpatrick who literally worked for the US State Department’s propaganda arm, Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty and convicted financial criminal George Soros’ faux-rights advocate Human Rights Watch (HRW) and Soros’ Open Society Institute itself.





Peace in Our Time?
• President Obama’s comments during West Point speech have warmongering foreign policy elites in a lather
By Michael Collins Piper In a recent foreign policy address at West
AMERICAN FREE PRESS (June 8th, 2014)
Point, President Barack Obama tried to impose a modest degree of restraint in U.S. intervention and adventurism abroad while adhering to the traditional internationalist mantra in basic principle. However, his minor deviation from the norm was enough to scare the globalists,whose interests are ably voiced by newspapers like The Washington Post.
The almost hysterical tone of the Post’s May 29 editorial response to Obama’s remarks was almost as if Obama had said something nice about Adolf Hitler.
The Post asserted Obama had rejected “decades of U.S. foreign policy”—that he’s tying America’s hands on foreign affairs, limiting U.S. opportunities to engage in military intervention around the world.
“This binding of U.S. power,” the Post cried, “places Mr. Obama at odds with every U.S. president since World War II.”
Well, from the standpoint of intelligent folks who’ve been observing decades of U.S. foreign policy—that sounds like a good thing.
The Post complained Obama “in effect, [ruled] out interventions to stop genocide or reverse aggression absent a direct threat to the U.S. homeland or a multilateral initiative.”
The idea that the U.S. should place America first rather than spend trillions policing the world is anathema to the Post, which has always found the concept that the United States should refrain from engaging in endless military ventures to be quite sinister, quite threatening—even “un-American.”
The Post complained Obama has “retrenched U.S. global engagement in a way that has shaken the confidence of many U.S. allies and encouraged some adversaries.
That conclusion can be heard not just from Republican hawks but also from senior officials from Singapore to France and, more quietly, from some leading congressional Democrats.”
A predictable voice for the foreign policy establishment, for the Democratic Party and for “liberal internationalism,” the Post took special delight in rushing to point out that not only top Democrats but even the Post’s traditional GOP foes were horrified by Obama’s remarks, underscoring, if anything, that there’s very little difference between Democrats and Republicans when it comes to foreign policy.
So the Post’s assertion regarding the united bipartisan frenzy in response to Obama’s remarks is not really surprising. In fact, during recent years, liberal internationalism and conservative internationalism have converged inmanyways. As such, it is impossible to differentiate between “Republican” foreign policy and “Democratic” foreign policy.
However, as Willis Carto noted in the book Populism vs. Plutocracy, there can be no such thing as a liberal foreign policy or a conservative foreign policy; there can only be a nationalist foreign policy or an internationalist foreign policy. And the truth is both major parties have attached themselves to internationalism.
Now, Obama is no “nationalist” by any means, but his West Point rhetoric, at least, comes about as close to the nationalist point of view as we’ve heard from any White House in a long time.
And note this: Obama’s rhetoric is hardly different, in many respects, from that of the legendary figure known in the mid-20th century as “Mr. Republican,” the late Sen. Robert A. Taft (R-Ohio) who valiantly fought for years against warmongering and foreign meddling.
To the degree we can weigh the broad sweep of Obama’s West Point rhetoric—without dissecting it in detail—we can only say “Obama is right.” And while that assertion may inflame those who don’t like the guy in the White House, it happens to be the case.
Clearly enough to put the Post in a panic, Obama’s foreign policy recommendations are a welcome departure from the perpetual unabashed advocacy for global meddling and wars without end coming from the likes of Sens. John McCain (RAriz.) and Lindsey Graham(R-S.C.) and rising GOP voices like Sens. Ted Cruz (Texas) and Marco Rubio (Fla.), all of whom want Americans to be forever battling ghosts and goblins—especially Muslims and, sooner than later, “them Rooshins”—all over the planet.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Michael Collins Piper is a world-renowned author, journalist, lecturer and radio show host. He has spoken in Russia, Malaysia, Iran, Abu Dhabi, Japan, Canada and, of course, the United States. He is the author of Final Judgment, The New Jerusalem, The High Priests of War, Dirty Secrets, My First Days in the White House, The New Babylon, Share the Wealth: Huey Long vs Wall Street, The Judas Goats: The Enemy Within, Target: Traficant and The Golem: Israel’s Nuclear Hell Bomb. You can order any of these books with a credit card by calling AFP/FAB toll free at 1-888-699-6397 or calling FAB directly at 202-547-5585 to inquire about pricing and S&H fees.


Ne les oublions pas: Les "idiots utiles" de la guerre en Irak 
Mardi 17 Juin 201
Régis Soubrouillard - Marianne
En 2003, quelques intellos soixante-huitards dénonçaient la France "soviétique" incapable de s'aligner sur les Etats-Unis pour aller combattre en Irak aux côtés des "boys" de George W. Bush. A l'époque Goupil, Glucksmann et Bruckner voyaient "Bagdad danser". Retour sur la joute intellectuelle initiée par ces gauchistes convertis au bushisme alors que l'Irak sombre aujourd'hui dans un chaos peu dansant...

: MOUSSE/SIPA POOL/SIPA
«Que Saddam parte, de gré ou de force ! Les Irakiens, Kurdes, chiites mais aussi bien sunnites respireront plus librement et les peuples de la région en seront soulagés » clamaient dans les pages du Monde, les philosophes Philippe Glucksmann et Pascal Bruckner ainsi que le réalisateur Romain Goupil dans une tribune sobrement intitulée « La faute ».
 
Sûrs de leurs certitudes, en avril 2003, nos trois soixante-huitards enchaînaient les prises de parole pour soutenir l’intervention américaine en Irak et n’avaient pas de mots assez durs pour dénoncer « l’antiaméricanisme français ». L’argumentaire des copains de barricade, condamnés à expier ad vitam leur « égarement » de jeunesse, virait même au délire quand on relit leur tribune onze ans plus tard. En plus de « protéger Saddam » — pas moins ! —, la France était devenue rouge, d’un rouge soviétique. Et l’histoire, cruelle, n’oublierait pas cet aveuglement idéologique des français : « Il faudra raconter un jour l'hystérie, l'intoxication collective qui ont frappé l'Hexagone depuis des mois, l'angoisse de l'Apocalypse qui a saisi nos meilleurs esprits, l'ambiance quasi soviétique qui a soudé 90 % de la population dans le triomphe d'une pensée monolithique, allergique à la moindre contestation », écrivait Glucksmann, Goupil et Bruckner. 
 
Bizarrement, à l’époque, l’interventionniste BHL n’avait pas rejoint la troupe. C’est plus tard que le philosophe deviendra un inébranlable va-t-en guerre. A l’époque, Bernard-Henri se tâte encore, changeant de discours en fonction du public comme le relèveront les auteurs du livre Le nouveau B.A.BA du BHL. En France, BHL est donc contre la guerre en Irak, même s’il la trouve « plutôt juste du point de vue de la morale ». Lorsque le philosophe s’exprime aux Etats-Unis, son propos est beaucoup plus nuancé : « J'étais opposé à l’administration Bush quand elle a décidé d’entrer en guerre contre l’Irak. Mais aujourd’hui, nous y sommes, nous devons désormais finir le travail » 
 
Mais revenons à nos « moutons » atlantistes. Pour eux, la France s’était donc « mise hors jeu », « ridiculisée » quand Tony Blair s’était révélé un « véritable chef d’Etat ». La plupart des partis politiques français avaient succombé à un « nationalisme des imbéciles ». Selon eux, Marianne avait d’ailleurs tout faux. Alors que Bagdad goûtait « ses premières heures de délivrance », l'hebdomadaire titrait, en effet, « La catastrophe ». Inadmissible pour nos valeureux combattants accablés devant le constat qu’il existe encore dans nos démocraties « une portion importante de citoyens que la chute d’une dictature désespère », basculant dans un lyrisme euphorique qui parait glaçant aujourd'hui: « Quand Bagdad danse, Paris fait grise mine ». 

Le meilleur du pire des mondes

En fait, nos trois joyeux lurons de l'Axe du Bien étaient ni plus ni moins que des résistants à une pensée obligatoire. Du moins le croyaient-ils. 
Quelques années plus tard rejoints par Stéphane Courtois, auteur du Livre noir du Communisme, Alexandre Adler, Pierre André Taguieff et bien d'autres, tous nos bushistes convertis, convaincus de la nécessité de poursuivre leur combat se retrouveront même pour créer une revue « Le Meilleur des mondes ».

La revue développera une vision binaire du monde partagé entre « amis » et « ennemis » de l’Amérique, « pro-Américains » et « anti-Américains ». En 2008, certains feront néanmoins volte-face, consacrant un édito dans la revue au… fiasco irakien : « Nous nous sommes en effet retrouvés piégés par le caractère très idéologique du débat franco-français. Nous n’avons pas assez prêté l’oreille à ceux d’entre nous qui, au milieu du vacarme antiaméricain, s’inquiétaient de l’absence de vrais projets politiques pour l’après-guerre. Hantés par le passé, nous avons vu l’Amérique de 2003 avec les lunettes de 1944. Or, George Bush n’est pas Franklin D. Roosevelt. Aveuglé par le 11 Septembre, ignorant des réalités du monde, le président américain a conduit son pays et le peuple irakien au désastre »
 
En 2014, force est de constater que la progression de l’EIIL (l'Etat islamique en Irak et au levant), ne fait que révéler les failles de l’Etat irakien laissé en place par les Américains à leur départ. Le risque désormais, en cas d’entrée de l’EIIL dans Bagdad, est bel et bien celui d’une guerre civile qui pourrait se révéler extrêmement sanglante, bien loin des promesses de respiration et de soulagement formulées, pour la population locale, par nos têtes pensantes.
 
Quelle importance après tout. Privée de son ennemi communiste, voulant illusoirement « faire la guerre au terrorisme », l'Amérique a laissé venir à elle tous les « idiots utiles » susceptibles de porter sa bonne parole pour alimenter une paranoïa apocalyptique. Même si, sur le terrain, tout a échoué. Ou comme le disait alors Philippe Muray « même si, en somme, le monde extérieur persiste à ne pas ressembler à celui des gameboys militaro-mystiques de Washington ».


The Neoconservative Hit list: Iraq, Libya and now Syria? A Plan for Global U.S. Military Supremacy

New York Times admits it lied about Iraq, Syria and Ukraine

The New York Times: We Pushed for War in Iraq
July 22, 2014  Exclusive from American Free Press
By Michael Collins Piper
• “Newspaper of record” says initial Iraq war reporting driven by “outside agendas.” 
• Public editor admits readers should be “wary” about what appears in pages of Times.

Just as the United States appears poised to get involved ever-deeper in the cauldron of Iraq—a toxic brew that is a direct consequence of the American invasion of that country in 2003—The New York Times is crying “boo hoo hoo” and admitting—and apologizing for—the fact that its lead-up coverage of that war was biased in favor of the Bush administration’s disastrous decision to attack that once-thriving Arab republic.  
Actually, this is nothing new. In the past, well after the damage was done, the Times—often hailed as “America’s newspaper of record”—loudly and publicly admitted, just for the record, that its reporting had been skewed.  
Now—with talk of U.S. “re-intervention” in the headlines—the Times is acknowledging, in advance, that (once again) its coverage has been biased in favor of war.  
On June 28, Margaret Sullivan, the “public editor” of the Times—who presumably looks out for the interests of the Times’s readers versus those of its owners and other elements of influence—sobbed, “The lead-up to the war in Iraq in 2003 was not the Times’s finest hour. Some of the news reporting was flawed, driven by outside agendas and lacking in needed skepticism. Many Op-Ed columns promoted the idea of a war that turned out to be both unfounded and disastrous.”  
Ms. Sullivan did not mention specifically what “outside agendas” influenced the Times—but more about that in a moment.  
Admitting that “readers have not forgotten” and that more than a decade later, it’s one of the topics she hears most about, Ms. Sullivan said that given the Times’s “troubled history” readers do “have good reason to be wary about what appears in the paper about military intervention in Iraq.”  
Ms. Sullivan points out that today—just as in 2003—critics contend the Times “is amplifying the voices of hawkish neoconservatives,” at the same time failing to give attention to the concerns of those who oppose another U.S. intervention. And having reviewed recent news coverage, she admits “the readers have a point worth considering.” She acknowledges the war hawks “are certainly being heard” and that the Times has only included “limited response” from their critics.  
Naturally, Ms. Sullivan avoids mentioning what forces may be dictating the Times’s bias: what pro-Israel Jewish writer Michael Kinsley referred to as far back as October 24, 2002 as “the proverbial elephant in the room”—the central role of Israel in the debate over the initial American attack on Iraq. “Everybody sees it, nobody mentions it,” said Kinsley.  
It took liberal Representative Jim Moran (D-Va.) to articulate the unmentionable, saying: “If it were not for the strong support of the Jewish community for this war in Iraq, we would not be doing this.” And, naturally, for saying this, Moran took quite a bit of heat.  
However, what Moran said—linking Israel and its U.S. supporters to the push for war—was not so extraordinary. On February 18, 2003, then-Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon was calling for America to move on Iran, Libya and Syria after what was presumed to be the successful forthcoming destruction of Iraq. Sharon said, “These are irresponsible states, which must be disarmed of weapons of mass destruction, and a successful American move in Iraq as a model will make that easier to achieve.” At the time, Sharon told a visiting delegation of American congressmen that “the American action [against Iraq] is of vital importance.”  
Just days later, on February 27, 2003, the Times reported that Israel not only advocated a U.S. war on Iraq, but that Israel also believed, ultimately, the war should be expanded to other nations perceived as threats to Israel. The Times stated:
Many in Israel are so certain of the rightness of a war on Iraq that officials are already thinking past that conflict to urge a continued, assertive American role in the Middle East. Defense Minister Shaul Mofaz told members of the Conference of Presidents of Major American Jewish Organizations last week that after Iraq, the United States should generate “political, economic, diplomatic pressure’’ on Iran. “We have great interest in shaping the Middle East the day after’’ a war, he said. Israel regards Iran and Syria as greater threats and is hoping that once Saddam Hussein is dispensed with, the dominoes will start to tumble.  
On April 16, 2004, the New York-based Forward, one of the most respected Jewish community newspapers in America, summed it all up saying that “on the eve of the war, Israel was a quiet but enthusiastic supporter of America’s war plans” and that “Israel uniquely benefited from a war that is increasingly controversial in America and around the world.”
Now today, we again need to consider the questions surrounding the U.S. attack on Iraq (and Syria and Iran): Who wants war? And who benefits? Looking at what happened in the past, we already have the answers.



Rothschild Influence Deep Within GOP 
Exclusive from American Free Press
By Michael Collins Piper  
Call it the “War Party,” the “New World Order” or the “Zionist Elite.” However you describe this element—with multiple ties to the Rothschild banking octopus and its predatory tentacles on American shores—its influence reaches the inner circles of key Republican presidential hopefuls who promise to save the republic from Obama’s legacy in 2016.
A reviewof those “advising” these GOP contenders indicates the same old faces are at work ensuring globalist powers will be directing the foreign policy agenda of whomever represents the GOP in the next presidential election.
Those from whom the GOP contenders are—as The Washington Post of April 6 put it—“soaking up guidance” are a disturbing lot.
War-happy internationalist Sen. John McCain (RAriz.)—whose wife’s $150 million beer fortune is owed to the patronage of the Jewish crime syndicate’s Bronfman family, longtime intimates of the Rothschild dynasty—bragged to the Post of the 2016 GOP hopefuls that “They all call, all the time” asking for advice from the failed former presidential candidate. However, McCain—who in 2008 actually raised campaign money in the London home of Lord Jacob Rothschild—was quick to assure the Post that “First, I tell them to touch base with Henry Kissinger—of course.”
That any future president would “of course” first touch base with Kissinger—long a top schemer among the New World Order elite—is of obvious concern to anyone who values national sovereignty.
But others with whom the Republican contenders are mingling are equally of concern. Rep. Paul Ryan (Wis.)—the GOP’s 2012 vice presidential candidate—huddles with his longtime associate, former Education Secretary William Bennett, a founding director of the hardline, pro-Israel, neoconservative “think tank,” Empower America, which once employed Ryan as a speechwriter, helping advance Ryan’s career in official Washington.
A protege of the ex-Trotskyite “godfather” of the neoconservatives, the late Irving Kristol—father of notorious modern-day neoconservative power broker William Kristol—Bennett and his Empower America co-founder, ex-Rep. Vin Weber (R-Minn.), remain influential in shaping Ryan’s worldview.
Today, Weber is a member of the board of the Council on Foreign Relations (CFR), the New York affiliate of the London-based Royal Institute of International Affairs, which is often referred to as the foreign policy arm of the Rothschild dynasty.
Florida Sen. Marco Rubio—whose foreign policy rhetoric becomes more bellicose and more fervently internationalist as 2016 approaches, has—according to The Washington Post—“become friendly” with Israeli-born Yuval Levin who has elsewhere been glowingly described as “probably the most influential conservative intellectual of the Obama era.”
Also turning to Levin for direction is Louisiana Gov. Bobby Jindal. But Jindal has his own antecedents that explain, at least in part, the longtime infatuation with Jindal by the Zionist-dominated media, which was promoting his presidential ambitions long before he came on the national stage.
Like ex-President Bill Clinton—who also received inordinate media attention from the earliest years of his own career—Jindal is a former Rhodes Scholar.
He had been trained at Oxford in England in the ideology of the late Cecil Rhodes, the African diamond magnate (financed by the Rothschilds) whose scholarships were established to indoctrinate bright young Americans in the concept that the United States should be reunited with the Rothschild-controlled British empire.
Jindal has been hailed for his sharp critiques of the federal government and his advocacy of rejuvenating state sovereignty in what is hailed as the spirit of the 10th Amendment to the Constitution.
But what many patriots simply don’t know is that New World Order advocates—such as the influential Clarence K. Streit, author of the infamous globalist tract, Union Now With Britain—openly proffered that the 10th Amendment actually provided the very mechanism for dismantling the American national union so the United States could be reunited with “the Mother Country.”
Thus, those enthused by Jindal’s seeming support for states rights might well keep in mind that (in light of Jindal’s Rhodes Scholarship background) another agenda might well be at work behind the rhetoric that seems to reflect traditional Americanism.
Oh yes, Jindal also relies on neoconservative titan William Kristol for advice on foreign policy.
For his part, Texas Gov. Rick Perry, whose 2012 presidential bid ended in fiasco, has kept his name in the offing by making a pilgrimage to Israel to huddle with no less than Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu.
Several years ago the pandering Perry said he relied on the editorial page of The Wall Street Journal, published by pro-Israel billionaire Rupert Murdoch, a longtime media front man for the Rothschild family, and what Perry called “the Jewish press” for his foreign policy direction.
Popular among conservatives as a union buster, Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker burnishes his foreign policy expertise by relying upon counsel from Mark Thiessen, a former speechwriter for George W. Bush, whose costly Middle East wars on behalf of Israel (carried out under the direction of the neoconservatives who dominated policy under Bush) still torment America. In the same realm, Texas Sen. Ted Cruz—whose wife is an executive with the investment bank Goldman Sachs, a preeminent force in the Rothschild sphere of influence—has actually drafted Victoria C. Gardner Coates, a former aide to ex-Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld (a primary architect of the disastrous Bush-erawars), as his national security advisor. A tea party favorite, Cruz—the son of a Christian Zionist minister—is particularly strident in his advocacy for a pro-war/pro-Israel agenda.
Perhaps most unexpected of all is Kentucky Sen. Rand Paul’s link to the Rothschild dynasty via his advisor, retired diplomat and CFR member Richard R. Burt who—prior to government service—was actually the national security correspondent for no less than The New York Times, the premier media voice of the Zionist establishment. Burt actually launched his career as assistant director of the International Institute of Strategic Studies (IISI), a globally-influential London-based think tank with deep Rothschild connections.
CFR member Lynn Forester de Rothschild—wife of Lord Evelyn de Rothschild—is associated with IISI, as are—among others: Lord Guthrie of Craigiebank, a director of N.M. Rothschild & Sons; Fleur deVilliers, a consultant to the Rothschild-controlled DeBeers diamond cartel (founded by Cecil Rhodes) and Thomas Seaman who chaired the investment committee of the Rhodes Trust, which sponsors the globalist-oriented Rhodes Scholarships.
Add to this—as this newspaper has previously reported—that Paul includes billionaire Peter Thiel, chair of the American steering committee for the Rothschild-financed Bilderberg meetings, as another advisor and one finds the plutocratic linkage comes full circle in Paul’s burgeoning presidential campaign.
—— Michael Collins Piper is an author, journalist, lecturer and radio show host. He has spoken in Russia, Malaysia, Iran, Abu Dhabi, Japan, Canada and the U.S.





Stop the Wars; Stop the Killing
D-Day anniversary spurs mainstream talking heads to fondly recall WWII

By Willis A Carto
Commentators of newspaper, radio and TV are all busy, as we write this, in reporting and gloating about the grand war against the evil Nazis, some 70 years ago.
We won that great struggle and prevented Adolf Hitler from conquering the world!
Such is the official line of the U.S. government, England, France and, of course, Russia.
The official line of governments and the establishment propagandists (historians) who work for themis normally false. But lies are useful for raising taxes, wars and making arms manufacturers and bankers wealthy.
Let us lookmore closely at the facts behind WWII without the benefit of any government propaganda, mainly the uncomfortable fact that Hitler did everything humanly possible to prevent war between Germany and England, even sending his deputy, Rudolf Hess,* to England to try and keep the peace. His primary foreign policy aim was to prevent the takeover of Europe by the genocidal communist tyrant Josef Stalin. That thiswas at the very top of Stalin’s agenda there can be no doubt.
Until the invasion of Europe by England and America Hitler did stop Stalin and for that historical feat there should be monuments of Hitler all over Europe.
Honest historian academics (find one if you can) recognize that Hitler saved Europe and the lives of millions of Europeans. But the primary dogma of British foreign policy has always been tomaintain a “balance of power” in Europe, thus freeing itself to control (at one time) 17/20ths of the Earth’s surface with its navy. So the importunings of Hitler and his foreignminister, Joachimvon Ribbentrop, and even the sacrifice of Hess, who flew to Britain in a last ditch attempt to bring peace to Europe, was futile.
Winston Churchill knew that he had the backing of America with his war plans even as Franklin D. Roosevelt was assuring gullible Americans “again and again and again that your boys will not be sent to a foreign war.”
Why did Roosevelt want war? Because in his twisted mind and body, he realized that war would mean a third and even a fourth term.
Even academic historians admit that the Roosevelt crowd baited Japan into attacking America.
The disaster caused the loss of 188 aircraft and damaged all eight battleships of the U.S. Pacific Fleet—six of which were eventually repaired and rejoined the fleet—not tomention the reputations of Adm. Husband Kimmel and Gen. Walter Short, who Roosevelt and the Jews and traitors around him criminally blamed for the disaster.
And today, America celebrates the awful killing and maiming.
Journalistic prostitutes, such as Robert Kaiser and Ed Schultz, are heard and seen on TV, radio and newspapers peddling the garbage for the criminalswho ran and still run America’s foreign policy. For example, Schultz, a “liberal,” exults in our “great victory” in WWII, never mentioning the economic bankruptcy that has engulfed America because of the war, while Kaiser may be heard praising the “good war.”
In the “good war” America lost 407,000 men, with some 670,846 seriously wounded. The victims had to live with pain, in wheel chairs and receiving secondrate care from their government if they were lucky.
Or perhaps we’re missing something? As Francis Parker Yockey (a very sane American, labeled as “crazy’ by the press) pointed out, something positive must be accomplished to justify a war. And so what have we as a nation gained byWWII?**
As pointed out above, the profiteers of WWII were the manufacturers and bankers who supplied the war materiel with our tax dollars not to mention the political pressure groups, especially the Jewish entity,which has gained not merely billions in direct payments but additional billions in assistance, such as a valuable piece of real estate in Palestine. Germany has been forced to supply highly advanced submarines and other weapons of war.
LISTEN, FELLOW AMERICANS
It is well past time to STOP THE WARS. Today our country has troops (including girls) needlessly in countries around the world. There is no rational reason for this other than the fact that it is good business for the profiteers who sell the paraphernalia of war. Can anyone explain, for example, why we have thousands of troops in Afghanistan and some 130 other countries strewn around the globe?
Isn’t it past time to bring the troops, and the financial aid that accompanies them, back home and spend some of themoney thatwe save on our crumbling national infrastructure, such as some 63,000 bridges that need repair?
Or is that too radical for the ilk of David Kaiser and Ed Shultz?
——
* Rudolf Hess: His Betrayal andMurder (291 pages, softcover, $25) is available fromTHE BARNES REVIEW BOOK CLUB. To order a copy of the book, send cash, money order or check to TBR, P.O. Box 15877, Washington, D.C. 20003. To charge, call toll-free 1-877-773-9077. Shop online at www.BarnesReview.com
** For a free copy of Willis Carto’s booklet “A Straight Look at the Second World War,” in which he discusses in length the unmitigated disaster thatWorldWar II truly was, send $1 to the above address with your request. Bulk quantities available: 202-547-5586.
—— Willis A. Carto is a longtime national editor and publisher. In 1955, Carto founded LIBERTY LOBBY, the first all-American, pro-middle class lobby group. In 1975 he launched The Spotlight newspaper which at one time had 375,000 subscribers. Currently he is the editor and publisher of THE BARNES REVIEW Revisionist history magazine. For a free sample issue and brochure, please contact TBR, P.O. Box 15877, Washington, D.C. 20003.

Franklin Roosevelt (above left), Josef Stalin (above
right) and Winston Churchill (center of page) are
largely responsible for the way the world is shaped
today. FDR (deathly sick in body and mind) and
Churchill (a drunk) handed over half of Europe to the
Soviets after WWII, costing millions more innocent lives.




Michael Collins Piper, YE SHALL KNOW THE TRUTH
Michael Collins Piper, YE SHALL KNOW THE TRUTH


Sur ce blog:

L'homme le plus puissant à Washington DC, le juif orthodoxe Eric Cantor, accuse les États-Unis de tarder à réagir à la menace iranienne comme ils ont tardé à réagir à la "menace nazie" et failli à éviter l'Holocauste des juifs...