Ils ont commencé par faire tomber Saddam et balkaniser l'Irak... Déstabiliser l'Afghanistan et maintenant l'Égypte et la Libye, où la 'révolution du peuple' tant louangée par notre presse hypocrite sert en fait de couverture à la balkanisation de ces États - balkanisation nécessaire à l'instauration d'un Grand Israël (incluant l'Égypte, l'Irak, l'Arabie Saoudite, la Syrie, la Jordanie, le Liban,etc.), qui cadrerait à merveille avec le Grand Moyen Orient (incluant l'Afrique du Nord, donc la Libye) souhaité par les agents israéliens au sein du gouvernement américain (mieux connus sous le nom de "néoconservateurs"). tout cela se trouve dans un rapport officiel israélien des années 80: A Strategy for Israel in the Nineteen Eighties. On retrouve le même programme dans le document Clean Break, produit par l'administration Netanyahou en 1996 et incluant parmi ses signataires le juif sioniste néoconservateur Richard Perle. Il indiquait ce qu'il restait à faire après la guerre du Golfe: éliminer Saddam Hussein et renverser les états arabes du Moyen Orient. Ce que les néocons n'ont pu concrétiser sous l'administration Clinton, ils se sont empressés de le concrétiser sous les deux mandats de Bush, tout juste après les incidents du 11 septembre.
Notez aussi que l'ultra sioniste John McCain et l'ultra sioniste juif Joe Liberman meurent d'envie de faire la guerre à la Libye!
Grand Moyen Orient - Wikipédia
À voir en parallèle avec le rêve likoudnik d'un "Grand Israël":
Terre d'Israël - Wikipédia
Likoud - Wikipédia
Grand Moyen Orient
Grand Israël
Plan sioniste pour le Grand Moyen Orient
(...) Chères frères Attention! Les évènements et soulèvements actuels dans les
pays arabes et musulmans ont été provoqués et soutenus par l'élite
sioniste. Connu sous le nom d'"Initiative du Grand Moyen-Orient". Il s'agit
en faite d'un plan proposé sous l'administration Bush, visant à procéder
à un remodelage de l'ensemble des pays arabo-musulmans, du Maghreb au
Pakistan, en passant par la Syrie, l'Iran et l'ensemble de la péninsule
Arabique qui vient d'être relancé.
http://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grand_Moyen-Orient
La liberté qui est laissée miroiter n'est en réalité qu'illusoire et le
but est clairement d'installer des systèmes ouverts qui leur soit
complètement acquis.
http://www.monde-diplomatique.fr/2004/04/ACHCAR/11101
Malheureusement, les aspirations légitimes à la liberté portées par la
jeunesse de ces pays, a été utilisée pour servir ces intérêts.
http://www.mondialisation.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=23084 - (Il s'agit
d'un article déjà publié sur le site d'alterinfo.net)
Nb: Commencer par renverser leurs alliés de longue date comme l'ont été
Ben Ali et Moubarak, n'était en réalité qu' une manœuvre stratégique,
notamment pour garantir plus de succès à cette vaste opération et pour
provoquer une désinformation, ainsi la grande majorité du monde n'a pas
compris qui se cachait réellement derrière ces évènements.
Bien sûr, le renversement de tous ces gouvernements corrompus, injustes,
violents et tyranniques serait une très bonne chose dans l'absolu, mais pas
non-plus à n'importe quelle prix, et surtout pas celui qui verrait triompher
ce plan cynique et machiavélique de contrôle planétaire orchestré par les
sionistes.
Ps: Savoir la manipulation est déjà un premier pas, mais bien sûr cela ne
suffit pas, toutefois je vous invite à communiquer cette position et à la
faire savoir, afin de dénoncer ainsi cette grande manipulation et essayer de la
contrecarrer autant que possible, avec l'aide de Dieu! (...)
Déstabilisation du Proche-Orient : la réalisation d’un plan sioniste conçu dans les années 80
Par Savoisien le mercredi, 2 mars 2011
LETTRE D’INFORMATIONS ECONOMIQUES STRATEGIQUES INTERNATIONALES
Extrait du numéro 225 du 28 février 2011
...
En réalité, deux logiques s’affrontent. D’un côté, il y a les tenants d’un plan conçu par les Etats-Unis et Israël, datant de 1984 et fondé sur le principe « diviser pour régner ». Les tenants de ce plan visent le contrôle de toutes les richesses du Moyen-Orient. De l’autre, le plan d’une Troisième Guerre mondiale, exécuté par le Comité X et qui marquera l’échec cuisant du premier.
Les événements d’Egypte : application d’un plan « rédigé par les sionistes »
En 1982, on pouvait lire ces lignes dans la revue sioniste Kivounim : « En tant que corps centralisé, l’Egypte est déjà un cadavre, surtout si l’on tient compte de l’affrontement de plus en plus dur entre musulmans et chrétiens. Sa division en provinces géographiques distinctes doit être notre objectif politique pour les années 1990, sur le front occidental. Une fois l’Egypte ainsi disloquée et privée de pouvoir central, des pays comme la Libye, le Soudan, et d’autres plus éloignés, connaîtront la même dissolution. L'accord de paix (de Camp David en 1978 NDLR) est pour l'instant un obstacle à la division de l'Etat Egyptien mais celle-ci ne saurait tarder avec la formation d'un Etat copte en Haute-Egypte. En dépit des apparences, le front Ouest présente moins de problèmes que celui de l’Est. La partition du Liban en cinq provinces... préfigure ce qui se passera dans l’ensemble du monde arabe. L’éclatement de la Syrie et de l’Irak en régions déterminées sur la base de critères ethniques ou religieux doit être, à long terme, un but prioritaire pour Israël, la première étape étant la destruction de la puissance militaire de ces Etats. Les structures ethniques de la Syrie l’exposent à un démantèlement qui pourrait aboutir à la création d’un Etat chi’ite le long de la côte, d’un Etat sunnite dans la région d’Alep, d’un autre à Damas, et d’une entité druze qui pourrait souhaiter constituer son propre Etat – peut-être sur notre Golan – en tout cas avec l’Houran et le nord de la Jordanie... Un tel Etat serait à long terme une garantie de paix et de sécurité pour la région. C’est un objectif qui est déjà à notre portée. Riche en pétrole et en proie à des luttes intestines, l’Irak est dans la ligne de mire israélienne. Sa dissolution serait pour nous plus importante que celle de la Syrie, car c’est lui qui représente à court terme la plus sérieuse menace pour Israël ». Cette lecture donne encore plus de crédit aux multiples sources assurant l’implication des réseaux sionistes dans les événements du 11-Septembre, ainsi que la falsification des « documents » ayant servi d’alibi à l’attaque de l’Irak.
Programmation d’une passation de pouvoir à Israël ?
Imran Hosein est un philosophe islamique très connu dans le monde musulman, spécialiste de la politique mondiale. En 2003, lors d’une interview, il parle du futur effondrement de la devise américaine mais il évoque surtout un plan conçu par l’establishment israélien, en 1984, en vue de régler les problèmes du Proche-Orient ! « L’empire américain, qui a hérité du pouvoir de l’Angleterre, va s’écrouler. Un autre pays, Israël, est appelé à remplacer les Etats-Unis et à jouer son rôle de leader. Les attentats du 11-Septembre marquent le début de la déstabilisation des Etats-Unis. Avant qu’Israël domine le monde, deux choses doivent encore être faites. Premièrement, l’économie américaine et le dollar doivent s’écrouler. L’effondrement futur du dollar entraînera avec lui toutes les monnaies papier. Alors, une grande guerre commencera dans laquelle Israël sera impliqué. Suite à cela, l’Etat d’Israël deviendra le leader incontesté et le problème de la Palestine se réglera de lui-même.
Pour obtenir un pouvoir hégémonique, Israël doit être en mesure de contrôler le pétrole. Les rédacteurs de ce plan affirmaient cependant qu’il n’était pas question de toucher au pétrole iranien.
Le jour où Israël exercera ce contrôle sur la majorité du pétrole régional, tout changera. Dans cette projection, Israël ne jouera pas un rôle d’agresseur. Il sera celui qui se défend. Il y aura des provocations jusqu’à ce que de plus en plus d’Arabes commencent une Intifada. La télévision arabe Al-Jazeera a été créée exprès pour diffuser dans tous les pays arabes. Les Arabes pensent encore que l’émetteur est libre. En fait, Al-Jazeera a pour vocation de transmettre des images accentuant la colère contre Israël. Dans ces pays, les gouvernements sont proaméricains. Ils trembleront quand le peuple se mettra en colère. Mais Israël contrôlera bien la colère. Israël a une alliance militaire avec les Etats-Unis. Quand la colère sera suffisammen intense, alors les Etats-Unis auront l’accord d’Israël pour une intervention. Quand les gens iront dans les rues, les régimes pro-américains seront attaqués. Le but recherché sera de faire tomber quelques-uns de ces régimes à l’aide de protestations antiaméricaines et anti-israéliennes.
Les événements d’Egypte : application d’un plan « rédigé par les sionistes »
En 1982, on pouvait lire ces lignes dans la revue sioniste Kivounim : « En tant que corps centralisé, l’Egypte est déjà un cadavre, surtout si l’on tient compte de l’affrontement de plus en plus dur entre musulmans et chrétiens. Sa division en provinces géographiques distinctes doit être notre objectif politique pour les années 1990, sur le front occidental. Une fois l’Egypte ainsi disloquée et privée de pouvoir central, des pays comme la Libye, le Soudan, et d’autres plus éloignés, connaîtront la même dissolution. L'accord de paix (de Camp David en 1978 NDLR) est pour l'instant un obstacle à la division de l'Etat Egyptien mais celle-ci ne saurait tarder avec la formation d'un Etat copte en Haute-Egypte. En dépit des apparences, le front Ouest présente moins de problèmes que celui de l’Est. La partition du Liban en cinq provinces... préfigure ce qui se passera dans l’ensemble du monde arabe. L’éclatement de la Syrie et de l’Irak en régions déterminées sur la base de critères ethniques ou religieux doit être, à long terme, un but prioritaire pour Israël, la première étape étant la destruction de la puissance militaire de ces Etats. Les structures ethniques de la Syrie l’exposent à un démantèlement qui pourrait aboutir à la création d’un Etat chi’ite le long de la côte, d’un Etat sunnite dans la région d’Alep, d’un autre à Damas, et d’une entité druze qui pourrait souhaiter constituer son propre Etat – peut-être sur notre Golan – en tout cas avec l’Houran et le nord de la Jordanie... Un tel Etat serait à long terme une garantie de paix et de sécurité pour la région. C’est un objectif qui est déjà à notre portée. Riche en pétrole et en proie à des luttes intestines, l’Irak est dans la ligne de mire israélienne. Sa dissolution serait pour nous plus importante que celle de la Syrie, car c’est lui qui représente à court terme la plus sérieuse menace pour Israël ». Cette lecture donne encore plus de crédit aux multiples sources assurant l’implication des réseaux sionistes dans les événements du 11-Septembre, ainsi que la falsification des « documents » ayant servi d’alibi à l’attaque de l’Irak.
Programmation d’une passation de pouvoir à Israël ?
Imran Hosein est un philosophe islamique très connu dans le monde musulman, spécialiste de la politique mondiale. En 2003, lors d’une interview, il parle du futur effondrement de la devise américaine mais il évoque surtout un plan conçu par l’establishment israélien, en 1984, en vue de régler les problèmes du Proche-Orient ! « L’empire américain, qui a hérité du pouvoir de l’Angleterre, va s’écrouler. Un autre pays, Israël, est appelé à remplacer les Etats-Unis et à jouer son rôle de leader. Les attentats du 11-Septembre marquent le début de la déstabilisation des Etats-Unis. Avant qu’Israël domine le monde, deux choses doivent encore être faites. Premièrement, l’économie américaine et le dollar doivent s’écrouler. L’effondrement futur du dollar entraînera avec lui toutes les monnaies papier. Alors, une grande guerre commencera dans laquelle Israël sera impliqué. Suite à cela, l’Etat d’Israël deviendra le leader incontesté et le problème de la Palestine se réglera de lui-même.
Pour obtenir un pouvoir hégémonique, Israël doit être en mesure de contrôler le pétrole. Les rédacteurs de ce plan affirmaient cependant qu’il n’était pas question de toucher au pétrole iranien.
Le jour où Israël exercera ce contrôle sur la majorité du pétrole régional, tout changera. Dans cette projection, Israël ne jouera pas un rôle d’agresseur. Il sera celui qui se défend. Il y aura des provocations jusqu’à ce que de plus en plus d’Arabes commencent une Intifada. La télévision arabe Al-Jazeera a été créée exprès pour diffuser dans tous les pays arabes. Les Arabes pensent encore que l’émetteur est libre. En fait, Al-Jazeera a pour vocation de transmettre des images accentuant la colère contre Israël. Dans ces pays, les gouvernements sont proaméricains. Ils trembleront quand le peuple se mettra en colère. Mais Israël contrôlera bien la colère. Israël a une alliance militaire avec les Etats-Unis. Quand la colère sera suffisammen intense, alors les Etats-Unis auront l’accord d’Israël pour une intervention. Quand les gens iront dans les rues, les régimes pro-américains seront attaqués. Le but recherché sera de faire tomber quelques-uns de ces régimes à l’aide de protestations antiaméricaines et anti-israéliennes.
La Jordanie tombera. Un régime islamique sera installé. Les Israéliens attendent patiemment. Les télévisions montreront alors un scénario dans lequel les gouvernements arabes tombent comme des dominos. L’Islam va grandir et menacer Israël. Ce sera le moment le plus dangereux, Israël pouvant être attaqué par des fanatiques. Ce sera du grand cinéma. Quand la détresse d’Israël sera grande, il y aura alors un coup de semonce. L’attaque fera pâlir les Etats-Unis de jalousie. Pour impressionner la planète, une technologie sera utilisée, que les Etats-Unis ne possèdent pas. Le pouvoir passera alors des Etats-Unis à Israël. Les puits de pétrole seront pris, mais ni les Etats-Unis ni l’Angleterre n’enverront de troupes. L’ONU devra stopper tout cela, parce que l’Europe et le Japon sont dépendants du pétrole.
Le moment où Israël contrôlera le pétrole du Moyen-Orient pourrait coïncider avec la chute finale du dollar.
D’aucuns pensent alors que l’islam disparaîtra et qu’une espèce de gouvernement mondial serait instaurée. Après la chute du dollar, le gouvernement mondial aura le pouvoir financier et économique sur les peuples ».
La lecture de ce plan (publié en 2003, soit il y a huit ans), explique l’actuelle déstabilisation de nombreux pays du Proche-Orient, riches en pétrole ou d’autres matières premières, par la coalition Etats-Unis/Israël. Par la guerre et la libération démocratique des peuples du Soudan et du Niger, de Côte d’Ivoire et du Nigeria, etc., un réseau de mondialistes met la main sur les principales voies de transport du gaz et du pétrole au Moyen-Orient et en Afrique. (D'où la farouche censure et oppression contre les énergies gratuites)
Le moment où Israël contrôlera le pétrole du Moyen-Orient pourrait coïncider avec la chute finale du dollar.
D’aucuns pensent alors que l’islam disparaîtra et qu’une espèce de gouvernement mondial serait instaurée. Après la chute du dollar, le gouvernement mondial aura le pouvoir financier et économique sur les peuples ».
La lecture de ce plan (publié en 2003, soit il y a huit ans), explique l’actuelle déstabilisation de nombreux pays du Proche-Orient, riches en pétrole ou d’autres matières premières, par la coalition Etats-Unis/Israël. Par la guerre et la libération démocratique des peuples du Soudan et du Niger, de Côte d’Ivoire et du Nigeria, etc., un réseau de mondialistes met la main sur les principales voies de transport du gaz et du pétrole au Moyen-Orient et en Afrique. (D'où la farouche censure et oppression contre les énergies gratuites)
La suite de ce numéro sur abonnement :
Lest We Forget–The “Arab Revolutions” Juxtaposed to “A Strategy for Israel in the Nineteen Eighties”.
The Plot To Create 'Greater Israel'
La croisade Judaique sur le monde où l'origine du plan de démantèlement du PO et MO.
AUDIO - Mark Glenn - Radio Interview With CII Broadcasting
Entrevue TRÈS RECOMMMANDÉE avec Mark Glenn sur le chaos qui se produit en ce moment au Moyen-Orient, et les plans impérialistes sionistes concernant le Moyen-Orient. Il insiste sur le fait que ça fait des mois que l'empire sioniste savait que ça allait bientôt péter dans certains pays (c'est la job de leurs stratégistes - très compétents - de faire ce genre de prévisions sur des mois et des années), ce qui veut dire 1) que c'est pas vrai qu'ils ont été pris par surprise et 2) qu'ils ont eu le temps de se préparer de manière à en bénéficier au max et à influencer le cours des choses dans le sens qui leur convient.
VIDEO - L'AUTRE MONDE Libye - 1/3 - La démocratie occidentale à l'uranium appauvri comme avenir? - 2 / 3 - 3 / 3
OPEN LETTER TO KEN O’KEEFE by Joe Fallisi
March 19, 2011
Editor’s note–my dear friend Joe in Italy has asked me to post this open letter to another dear friend, Ken O’Keefe.
Dear Ken, my friend, my brother. We met last time at Shawa Theatre in Gaza, before my third concert there, two months ago. You know how much I love the cause of a free (and happy) Palestine and how just in the Strip of Martyrs I have my best friends, even my true family. Till the last breath of my life I’ll go on in this fight for truth and justice. You know also how much I admired you not only for your behavior during our common adventure, last year, on the Freedom Flotilla, but also, and even more, for how you were able to defend the truth about what really happened during the murderous assault by Zionist predators – I remember, for instance, your great interview for the BBC. Just because of that, and even because some years ago you had the idea to organize from London the human shields to go to Iraq and try to help the people there to avoid the horrible destruction of their country by Western intruders, I ask you to be brave again and to say openly, even now, some words of truth.
What all international criminals of the “UN” and “Arab” (more than shameful) “League” are planning against free, independent Great Socialist People’s Libyan Arab Jamahiriya is a crime beyond any words. Even worse than what Anglo-America did against Iraq. All the “reports” of totally drugged media, spread all over the world, were, are SPECTRAL, radically FAKE. There is NO reason, absolutely none, except for the previously-decided purpose of swallowing an entire country and again throwing it back into the colonial age (by REAL mass murder and destruction and an eternal radioactive plague, just as they did in the unfortunate Iraq, Afghanistan and before that in the former Yugoslavia), to make any “humanitarian” no-fly zone on the sky of sovereign Libya, that means, of course, to invade then and to occupy the last independent Arab country, their obvious aim since the beginning of all this plot.
“Rebels” from Benghazi are corrupted traitors and ultra-reactionary monarchists linked to the foreign exploiters who tried, on behalf of them, to make a coup against the most laical, not racist and prosperous country, of the last 40 years of Africa. Compared to monsters and tyrants like Obama, Cameron, Sarkozy, Netanyahu Gaddafi is but a harmless koala bear. And the Libyan people will resist this incredible, indecent bullying wished by the “international” politically correct “community” (of vampires).
Please DON’T STAY SILENT. We must live our few years on this earth with dignity. Better to be alone than in a very bad company.
I embrace you brother.
FREE LIBYA, FREE PALESTINE!
DOWN WITH IMPERIALISTS, DOWN WITH ZIONISTS!
Joe Fallisi
Ostuni, Italy, March 17th 2011, 11h58m PM
Rabbin : la chute de Moubarak, prélude à l’émergence du Messie Sauveur
Ainsi, après le rabbin Ovadia Yossef, qui a appelé Cheikh Al-Azhar à déclarer l'amnistie pour Moubarak, voici le rabbin Ephraïm Melvovic qui annonce sur une vidéo diffusée sur YouTube, que la chute de Moubarak après 30 années au pouvoir, est un prélude à l'approche de l'émergence de Christ Sauveur, qui va construire un grand royaume aux Juifs et leur octroyer le plein contrôle du monde !!
Le rabbin Melvovic affirme que l'âge du Christ Sauveur est de trente ans d’après le Talmud, et le Christ Sauveur apparaîtra au moment où les peuples seront confrontés à des crises et des difficultés, ce qui se passe actuellement dans la région en Syrie, au Yémen et en, Libye, selon les termes.
Nous rappelons que la religion juive ne reconnaît pas que Jésus comme étant le Christ, au contraire elle croit que le Christ apparaîtra avant la fin du monde.
Gaddafi’s Israel Threat Linked To Libya Riots?
La Libye victime de son indépendance vis-à-vis des puissances occidentales
Hugo Chavez défend son allié Kadhafi
Chavez défend sa vérité sur la Libye!
Hugo Chavez s'exprime sur la Libye et la désinformation occidentale
Chavez sur la Libye : avons nous tous été trompés une fois de plus par les médias sionistes?
Chavez sera-t-il le médiateur de la crise libyenne?
Chavez pour une solution pacifique en Libye
Libye: Castro salue l'initiative de Chavez
Libye : la Ligue arabe examine un plan de solution de Chavez
Libya gov't accepts Chavez plan for solution to conflict
The PNACers who pushed for “democratic change” in Egypt
Yemen president: Unrest in Arab world is pro-Zionist conspiracy
Le plan de l'OTAN est d'occuper la Libye par Fidel CASTRO
Nouvel Ordre Mondial: Les « révolutions » en Tunisie, Egypte et Moyen-Orient manoeuvres de restructuration géopolitique de la région par l’Empire
Une guerre civile provoquée en Libye afin de justifier une intervention militaire des États-Unis et de l'OTAN?
Farrakhan: Jews are pushing the US into war
Major Media Promote War on Libya
US Mulling Military Options in Libya
"No-Fly” Zone in Libya: A Neocon Trick
“Liberation”–Beware the Ides of March–Pt I
Le Tribunal Spécial pour le Liban, paravent de la CIA et du Mossad
Obama: Israel will ultimately benefit from recent Egypt uprising
It started with Bush Op-ed: Ex-president’s commitment to Iraq’s freedom paved way for latest Arab uprisings [D'abord l'Irak, puis le reste du Moyen-Orient... suivant le programme conçu il y a 30 ans par les néocons.]
'Israel, criterion for US intervention'
Syria: Israel behind anti-government rallies
Assad decries 'conspiracy' In first address to nation since wave of anti-government protests broke out, Bashar Assad blames 'conspirators' trying to destroy country, says Israel 'has been inciting for weeks against Syria'
Assad: Syria protests aim to enforce an 'Israeli agenda'‘Syrian Protestors Proxy for US/Israel’
Revealed: US spy operation that manipulates social media
Les réseaux sociaux: un bel outil pour ceux qui ont intérêt à semer le chaos au moyen-orient... Par exemple, pour manipuler des "révolutions du peuple" qu'on a vu venir des mois d'avance...
U.S. funding tech firms that help Mideast dissidents evade government censors
Washington Post, by Ian Shapira
Washington Post, by Ian Shapira
The Obama administration may not be lending arms to dissidents in the Middle East, but it is offering aid in another critical way: helping them surf the Web anonymously as they seek to overthrow their governments. Federal agencies – such as the State Department, the Defense Department and the Broadcasting Board of Governors – have been funding a handful of technology firms that allow people to get online without being tracked or to visit news or social media sites that governments have blocked. Many of these little-known companies – such as the Tor Project or UltraReach- are unabashedly supportive of the activists in the Middle East.
NY TIMES. WASHINGTON — Even as the United States poured billions of dollars into foreign military programs and anti-terrorism campaigns, a small core of American government-financed organizations were promoting democracy in authoritarian Arab states. The money spent on these programs was minute compared with efforts led by the Pentagon. But as American officials and others look back at the uprisings of the Arab Spring, they are seeing that the United States’ democracy-building campaigns played a bigger role in fomenting protests than was previously known, with key leaders of the movements having been trained by the Americans in campaigning, organizing through new media tools and monitoring elections.
A number of the groups and individuals directly involved in the revolts and reforms sweeping the region, including the April 6 Youth Movement in Egypt, the Bahrain Center for Human Rights and grass-roots activists like Entsar Qadhi, a youth leader in Yemen, received training and financing from groups like the International Republican Institute, the National Democratic Institute and Freedom House, a nonprofit human rights organization based in Washington, according to interviews in recent weeks and American diplomatic cables obtained by WikiLeaks.
The work of these groups often provoked tensions between the United States and many Middle Eastern leaders, who frequently complained that their leadership was being undermined, according to the cables.
The Republican and Democratic institutes are loosely affiliated with the Republican and Democratic Parties. They were created by Congress and are financed through the National Endowment for Democracy, which was set up in 1983 to channel grants for promoting democracy in developing nations. The National Endowment receives about $100 million annually from Congress. Freedom House also gets the bulk of its money from the American government, mainly from the State Department.
No one doubts that the Arab uprisings are home grown, rather than resulting from “foreign influence,” as alleged by some Middle Eastern leaders.
“We didn’t fund them to start protests, but we did help support their development of skills and networking,” said Stephen McInerney, executive director of the Project on Middle East Democracy, a Washington-based advocacy and research group. “That training did play a role in what ultimately happened, but it was their revolution. We didn’t start it.” (...)
The U.S. official hoping for a “ripple effect” is Michael Posner, Assistant Secretary of State for the Bureau of Democracy, Human Rights and Labor. Prior to joining the State Department, Posner was the Executive Director and then President of Human Rights First. Among Human Rights First’s donors are such notable human rights advocates as George Soros and Lockheed Martin. On its national council in 2007 was Abner Mikva, one of President Obama’s earliest pro-Israel mentors.
VIDEO - Madsen : Les réseaux sociaux ont des liens avec la CIA (vidéo)
"Les révolutions arabes ne sont que des coups d’Etat militaires masqués"
The Jewish power-providers of the Arab Spring revolts
Facebook's Mark Zuckerberg tops 'The Jerusalem Post's' list of the 50 most influential Jews in the world, 2011.
U.S. secretly backed Syrian opposition groups, cables released by WikiLeaks show
Libya Names New Central Bank Governor (banque centrale fondée par les rebelles)
The agents of Washington and Britain within Libya’s opposition leadership
Libyan Rebels Say US, Egyptian Special Forces Training Them
“Our Man in Tripoli”: US-NATO Sponsored Islamic Terrorists Integrate Libya’s Pro-Democracy Opposition
Al Qaeda: Pawns of CIA Insurrection from Libya to Yemen
Libya Rebel Gen: NATO Not Attacking Enough
Les services secrets canadiens et les combattants de la "liberté" en Libye
Une démocratie de plus au secours des rebelles en Libye
VIDEO - Libya Rebels had NATO Weapons from Day 1
The Arab Revolution’s Zionist Friends
L'objectif, en Libye, est-ce le pétrole ou le système bancaire ? par Ellen Brown
Libya Rebels Build Parallel State
‘US using chaos to break up Arab states’
'Arab Spring' - Egyptians Now Say 'This Revolution Was A Curse'
Ostrovsky, un ancien agent du Mossad, dit que la devise de ce dernier est : « Au moyen de la tromperie, tu feras la guerre ». Le Mossad, dit-il, a provoqué la frappe aérienne américaine sur la Libye en 1986 en faisant apparaître que des ordres terroristes étaient transmis par le gouvernement libyen à ses ambassades autour du monde. Mais les messages provenaient d’Israël et étaient retransmis par un système spécial de communication – un « cheval de Troie » – que le Mossad avait placé à l’intérieur de la Libye. Le Mossad se retourna ensuite contre Saddam, poussant les Etats-Unis à lui faire la guerre.
NED, ADL and the Middle East Uprisings
Carl Gershman, longtime president of the National Endowment for Democracy, worked in the research department of the Anti-Defamation League of B’nai B’rith during the second half of 1968. “Research,” as the 1993 San Francisco case revealed, can be a convenient euphemism for the ADL’s spying on Israel’s perceived enemies.
Speaking at the ADL’s 2004 Rome conference on “Anti-Semitism – A Threat to Democracy,” Gershman revealed a pro-Israeli motivation behind his promotion of “democratic reform” in the Middle East. “Whatever their differences,” said NED’s president, “the Baathists and Islamists share a visceral hatred of liberal values that finds its most potent expression in the vilification of Israel and the Jewish people.”
Pro-democracy activists in the Middle East who have been “quietly nurtured” by NED would be well advised to do a little more research themselves on who is supporting their uprisings, and why. And those who support them in the hope that they might pose a threat to Israeli hegemony should ask themselves why ardent Zionists like Carl Gershman have worked long and hard to promote “democracy” in the region.
Speaking at the ADL’s 2004 Rome conference on “Anti-Semitism – A Threat to Democracy,” Gershman revealed a pro-Israeli motivation behind his promotion of “democratic reform” in the Middle East. “Whatever their differences,” said NED’s president, “the Baathists and Islamists share a visceral hatred of liberal values that finds its most potent expression in the vilification of Israel and the Jewish people.”
Pro-democracy activists in the Middle East who have been “quietly nurtured” by NED would be well advised to do a little more research themselves on who is supporting their uprisings, and why. And those who support them in the hope that they might pose a threat to Israeli hegemony should ask themselves why ardent Zionists like Carl Gershman have worked long and hard to promote “democracy” in the region.
COMMENTAIRE: Cette connexion entre la NED et l'ADL n'est pas sans rappeler le cas du propagandiste sioniste ERIC DUHAIME.
N'oublions pas aussi que tous ces tourments qui agitent le Moyen-Orient offrent une superbe opportunité pour les sionistes de nous distraire de ce qu'ils sont en train de faire subir aux Palestiniens - l'État palestinien indépendant étant actuellement en processus de reconnaissance mondiale.
The High Priests of War: The Secret History of How America's Neo-Conservative Trotskyites Came to Power and Orchestrated the War Against Iraq as the First Step in Their Drive for Global Empire, par Michael Collins Piper
À lire sur ce blog:
Un officiel égyptien accuse Israël d'avoir fomenté le chaos en Égypte
Un pays en voie de reconnissance mondiale
Flashback: Kadhafi: le Mossad a assassiné JFK
Kadhafi réitère ses propos sur l'assassinat de JFK par le Mossad
Les nationalistes Ahmadinejad, Chavez et Khadafi
Lawrence Dennis: l'importance capitale du non-interventionnisme
"The Biggest Crime of the 20th Century"
One Prophet's Appeal to Reason:
The Dangers of Zionism, Imperialism and Nuclear Madness
One Prophet's Appeal to Reason:
The Dangers of Zionism, Imperialism and Nuclear Madness
Some 50 years ago an American intellectual with few peers (then or now) saw the inevitable consequences of global imperialism by the United States and the dangers of futile wars in the name of "democracy." He recognized that the rise of Zionist power and the concurrent emergence of nuclear weapons were a combination for disaster. The late Lawrence Dennis (1893-1977) made an appeal to reason that has immense relevance to the survival of America and our world today.
During the mid-20th century—from the early 1930s through the 1960s—Dennis established himself, beyond question, as America's foremost nationalist theoretician.
An outspoken opponent of imperial meddling, Dennis warned early on against American involvement in the affairs of the Third World—par- ticularly the Middle East—and predicted disaster for America (and the world) as the ultimate consequence.
What Dennis said during his heyday is so profound and so prophetic that his commentary is worth resurrecting in these modern times.
One cannot help but read Dennis's remarks—as published in his small- circulation (but still highly and quietly influential) newsletter, The Appeal to Reason (published from the 1950s through the early 1960s)—and reflect upon how his analysis of world events, even then, would so accurately mirror the propaganda and warmongering bombast that led to the American invasion of Iraq and the events that followed.
Although best remembered as the towering genius who stood trial in 1944 (along with some 30 others) on trumped-up "sedition" charges for opposing Franklin Roosevelt's drive to push America into what became World War II, it is largely forgotten that Dennis was also a forthright critic of the subsequent Cold War era that followed.
During the Cold War, Dennis was fiercely adamant about the dangers of saber-rattling against the Soviet Union. He recognized that communism could not survive and asserted unswervingly that American intervention in the Third World in the name of "fighting communism" would only make new enemies for the United States, setting the stage for Soviet exploitation of Third World distaste for American adventurism.
Neither a "conservative" nor a "liberal," Dennis defied (and excoriated) those labels, well before it became fashionable to do so and long prior to the time that honest intellectuals came to understand the terms ceased to be relevant (and perhaps never were).
And in this age of so-called "political correctness," it is probably appropriate to note that although Dennis was of African-American her- itage on both sides of his family, he "passed" for being "white." While he never formally denied his ethnic antecedents, much to the subsequent dismay of modern-day howlers who demand—in retrospect—that Dennis should have "acted Black" and thereby effectively denied himself the opportunity to become the world-traveling diplomat, economist, writer and lecturer this multi-talented human being happened to be.
Ironically, it has really only been in recent years that many American nationalists of both the "left" and the "right" have finally come to recognize the wisdom of Lawrence Dennis.
Today even Pat Buchanan echoes the anti-imperialist, America First position that Dennis put forth, calling for critics of "Pax Americana" on both the "right" and the "left" to unite against the New World Order, which is—now all too clearly—a mad, plundering war-driving (and war-driven) amalgam of the forces of international plutocratic capitalism and Zionism, united in an Axis of Evil.
Long prior to Buchanan, however, independent-minded journals such as Right, The American Mercury, The Spotlight (all since defunct) and now American Free Press and the bimonthly American history magazine, The Barnes Review, were commemorating Dennis.
Willis A. Carto—the publisher of The Barnes Review—was a friend of Dennis and treasures his rare collection of Dennis' newsletter, The Appeal to Reason, upon which is based the following distillation of Dennis' thought regarding the combined danger of U.S. global meddling and support for Zionism in the era of nuclear weapons.
Reflecting upon the intense thought and carefully-crafted writing and analysis by Dennis on the big issues of war, capitalism, imperialism and expansion and his opposition thereto—not to mention the interplay of those forces with the spiral of Zionist influence in the wake of the establishment of the state of Israel and the rise of nuclear proliferation—the reader will be astounded at how truly prescient Dennis was, writing more than 50 years ago.
It is no wonder that a host of influential 20th Century personalities relied on Dennis for his insights: from former Ambassador Joseph P. Kennedy (father of President Kennedy) to General Robert Wood and on to famed aviator Charles Lindbergh and such free-thinking historians as William Appleman Williams and Harry Elmer Barnes, among many others who respected the dynamic brain-power of this amazing man.
While one may not agree with everything Dennis had to say—nor would Dennis have demanded that—it is impossible to deny that Dennis was a prophet with an articulate capacity to cut to the chase and analyze world affairs in a lively, no-nonsense style. His words are a clarion call for a global offensive against Israel's nuclear Golem.
During the mid-20th century—from the early 1930s through the 1960s—Dennis established himself, beyond question, as America's foremost nationalist theoretician.
An outspoken opponent of imperial meddling, Dennis warned early on against American involvement in the affairs of the Third World—par- ticularly the Middle East—and predicted disaster for America (and the world) as the ultimate consequence.
What Dennis said during his heyday is so profound and so prophetic that his commentary is worth resurrecting in these modern times.
One cannot help but read Dennis's remarks—as published in his small- circulation (but still highly and quietly influential) newsletter, The Appeal to Reason (published from the 1950s through the early 1960s)—and reflect upon how his analysis of world events, even then, would so accurately mirror the propaganda and warmongering bombast that led to the American invasion of Iraq and the events that followed.
Although best remembered as the towering genius who stood trial in 1944 (along with some 30 others) on trumped-up "sedition" charges for opposing Franklin Roosevelt's drive to push America into what became World War II, it is largely forgotten that Dennis was also a forthright critic of the subsequent Cold War era that followed.
During the Cold War, Dennis was fiercely adamant about the dangers of saber-rattling against the Soviet Union. He recognized that communism could not survive and asserted unswervingly that American intervention in the Third World in the name of "fighting communism" would only make new enemies for the United States, setting the stage for Soviet exploitation of Third World distaste for American adventurism.
Neither a "conservative" nor a "liberal," Dennis defied (and excoriated) those labels, well before it became fashionable to do so and long prior to the time that honest intellectuals came to understand the terms ceased to be relevant (and perhaps never were).
And in this age of so-called "political correctness," it is probably appropriate to note that although Dennis was of African-American her- itage on both sides of his family, he "passed" for being "white." While he never formally denied his ethnic antecedents, much to the subsequent dismay of modern-day howlers who demand—in retrospect—that Dennis should have "acted Black" and thereby effectively denied himself the opportunity to become the world-traveling diplomat, economist, writer and lecturer this multi-talented human being happened to be.
Ironically, it has really only been in recent years that many American nationalists of both the "left" and the "right" have finally come to recognize the wisdom of Lawrence Dennis.
Today even Pat Buchanan echoes the anti-imperialist, America First position that Dennis put forth, calling for critics of "Pax Americana" on both the "right" and the "left" to unite against the New World Order, which is—now all too clearly—a mad, plundering war-driving (and war-driven) amalgam of the forces of international plutocratic capitalism and Zionism, united in an Axis of Evil.
Long prior to Buchanan, however, independent-minded journals such as Right, The American Mercury, The Spotlight (all since defunct) and now American Free Press and the bimonthly American history magazine, The Barnes Review, were commemorating Dennis.
Willis A. Carto—the publisher of The Barnes Review—was a friend of Dennis and treasures his rare collection of Dennis' newsletter, The Appeal to Reason, upon which is based the following distillation of Dennis' thought regarding the combined danger of U.S. global meddling and support for Zionism in the era of nuclear weapons.
Reflecting upon the intense thought and carefully-crafted writing and analysis by Dennis on the big issues of war, capitalism, imperialism and expansion and his opposition thereto—not to mention the interplay of those forces with the spiral of Zionist influence in the wake of the establishment of the state of Israel and the rise of nuclear proliferation—the reader will be astounded at how truly prescient Dennis was, writing more than 50 years ago.
It is no wonder that a host of influential 20th Century personalities relied on Dennis for his insights: from former Ambassador Joseph P. Kennedy (father of President Kennedy) to General Robert Wood and on to famed aviator Charles Lindbergh and such free-thinking historians as William Appleman Williams and Harry Elmer Barnes, among many others who respected the dynamic brain-power of this amazing man.
While one may not agree with everything Dennis had to say—nor would Dennis have demanded that—it is impossible to deny that Dennis was a prophet with an articulate capacity to cut to the chase and analyze world affairs in a lively, no-nonsense style. His words are a clarion call for a global offensive against Israel's nuclear Golem.
"The Biggest Crime of the 20th Century"
By Lawrence Dennis
By Lawrence Dennis
The dynamics of religious wars are hate (of sin) and fear (of the foreign devil). This we have. The American people were never adequately told that World Wars I and II and our Korea fiasco were all religious wars [although] I have been very much alone harping on the religious war nature of World Wars I and II and of the post World War II state of permanent Cold War.
This aspect of America's wars since 1914 has to be seen in the light of history and of analogy with the religious wars of the 17th century and earlier. It was not so obvious in World War I as in World War II. The Kaiser and Emperor Franz Joseph of Austria Hungary had no counterparts of Hitler's Nazism or Mussolini's Fascism or of Russian and Chinese communism today.
World War I was turned into a sort of religious war as a matter of practical necessity in order to sell the American people intervention in that war on the side of the Allies. They could not have been lined up for that war by being told it would be good business for the United States or that it was necessary for American defense.
The Americans had to be told it was a war to end war. That made it for them a religious war. Selling World War II to the American people as a religious war was rendered easy by Hitler and his "ism."
Before each of the last two world wars and before the next one, Americans have had the delusion that foreign devils can be prevented or deterred from doing evil if only we do the right things. The right things are building up a tremendous war potential and constantly denouncing the foreign devils for being what they are and doing what they do. When these delusions prove wrong and when the foreign devil refuses to comply with one of our ultimatums, as did the Japanese before Pearl Harbor, and when the foreign devil at last strikes, as at Pearl Harbor, then the American ideology dictates, as up to that point, what action we, as a nation, must take.
The road block to debate is that almost no one of stature with a career or a livelihood to worry about is willing to risk it by telling the American or British people that they made a mistake by fighting two world wars which most of them still think they won.
To say anything like this is to invite the charge of defending the German devils and of arguing that it was not worthwhile to save the world from German conquest and domination. The answer is that the results of fighting to save the world from one devil have been far worse than would have been letting the Germans and the Russians fight it out or of letting the Chinese and the Japanese do likewise.
The answer is that there never was and there never will be just one devil from whom the world is to be saved by crusaders who, by defeating this one devil, can usher in the Millennium.
Non-interventionist America was a great success in the 19th century. An interventionist America has been a failure in world affairs since World War I. In world affairs since World War II, the U.S. has bitten off more than it can chew.
The idea that the British, the Germans or the Americans could, in the 20th century, repeat the Roman Empire of two millennia earlier was widely heralded in this country and the Western world. But it was always absurdly unrealistic.
World unification under anyone formula seems every day less and less possible. Law and force offer no formula for world peace. More tolerance is the only constructive approach to the war problem. War is becoming unacceptable by reason of nuclear weapons. Nuclear war can only be averted by appeal to reason and self-interest.
What is U.S. foreign policy or Mideast policy? It is intervention with force and money in every major foreign crisis or conflict in the name of abstractions like collective security, the world rule of law, defense, and the United Nations.
The United Nations are not united. Retaliatory co-annihilation is not defense. An interventionist policy is unpredictable and uncontrollable. Intervention can't succeed. Only non-intervention and playing a balance of power game could serve the United States.
The U.S. invented nuclear weapons and launched nuclear war ... our contribution to the decline of the west. Therefore, the U.S. must prevent nuclear war by deterring those with nuclear weapons from using them. Absurd! We predict, once the atomic trigger is pulled, total war is on.
A non-interventionist or a neutrality policy, now so often miscalled an isolationist policy, gives a nation like the U.S. far more initiative and power to shape events and determine results than our present policy of unlimited and unpredictable intervention.
Thanks to 40 years of American world meddling since 1917, the world is now in a bigger mess than ever. American intervention with money or force creates a situation or balance of forces which can only be maintained with continued and often increasing deployment of American force and money.
The latest in the international situation is the passing of the buck of defense to the United States by the British as well as by the Israelis. American foreign policy of intervention everywhere serves well only one major purpose, that of maintaining full employment through inflation and maximum spending by our government.
Expert lawyering or advocacy with words for any one side whether for a nation in the world contest or for a pressure group or movement, domestically, will not contribute to peace or better relations and stability. Internationalism, universalism and one worldism are all unrealistic and dangerous concepts or tools of thought. American universalism or internationalism is phony.
We [can] respect any sincere and consistent believer in and crusader for his particular cult of one worldism or universalism, be it religious, political or otherwise, ideologically or operationally, provided he does not propose to put over his one world order by the sword, as did the Christian Crusaders of yore and so many other brands of historical crackpots, or religious fanatics.
But to have American southerners—now as in the past, against racial integration or assimilation—preach internationalism, one worldism, the world rule of one law, and a mushy sort of universalism, well, that really nauseates any rational person.
The same goes for the leaders and voices of organized labor, all pro- fessing the deepest attachment to the values and norms of a one world internationalism or universalism, but all opposed to lowering our immi- gration barriers so as to allow our labor market to be flooded with millions of cheap workers from the colored world.
The organized labor internationalist is a phony just like the southern internationalist and one worlder who is against integration but who would have U.S. forces stationed all over the planet to enforce the world rule of law, while he is now flouting or denying the decision of our Supreme Court on integration.
When the liberals and internationalists were crusading for our entry into an anti-Nazi war, were they any less extremists than are the now so- called conservatives who are preaching anti-communism? The Revisionists are not and never were extremists. The extremist label should usually be applied to those in the war party.
The most extreme factor now operative and to be feared is war, including preparations for war.
War has progressively been becoming a more extreme factor since the middle of the 19th Century. War rolled the national debt up from $43 billion in 1940 to $279 billion in 1945. The Cold War has rolled it up to over $300 billion at present.
Can the extremism of war be successfully met with moderation? Must one extremism always be met with another extremism?
[John E] Kennedy seems to be more of a moderate than an extremist. Unfortunately, extremism, that is to say, some form or type of extremism usually has more mass appeal than a course of moderation. Kennedy is coming under considerable fire or criticism because he is not talking or acting tough enough for the taste of most people. Most people still do not accurately or rationally evaluate the new war factors.
[This was written on June 7, 1963, just less than six months before John F. Kennedy was killed in Dallas. In fact, Dennis' commentary fore- shadowed, in many respects, the subsequent widespread belief that JFK was indeed assassinated precisely because of his refusal to adopt the "tough" line of the Zionists and their Cold Warrior allies who today make up the ruling "neo-conservative" clique at the highest levels of the American government. —MICHAEL COLLINS PIPER.]
Most of the current criticism of Kennedy is based on his failure to make achievements for the United States or to display what the masses of our people like to think of as world leadership.
The Boobus Americanus or the American hick cannot understand why his country, the winner of World War II, should not now be the world leader and in control of the world situation.
Obviously, neither President Kennedy nor anyone of his spokesmen can tell the Boobus Americanus that America did not win World War II but that Russia and communism, only, thanks to American aid, won the war. And this is something that neither the American conservatives, so-called, nor the American liberals, so-called, are disposed to say openly or publicly. The conservatives talk tough against the foreign devil and against more government at home. This is paradoxical and irrational.
What could be more absurd than the demand of the American con- servative for a tougher policy against Communist Russia and China along with less government intervention, control and taxation at home?
What could be more paradoxical than being for war and against socialism? The great weakness of most American conservatives and lib- erals is their failure or inability to take an operational view of big modern war. They just cannot get it through their thick heads that big modern war has to be socialistic.
The permanent cold war now being carried on must downgrade the white world and upgrade the colored world, something our dumb Southerners [who supported] Woodrow Wilson's war to make the world safe for democracy never saw. DeGaulle sees this and wants to end the futile French war in North Africa.
[In fact, in 1962 DeGaulle surrendered French control of Algeria— much to the dismay of Israel—and a major new Arab republic was born. During the same period DeGaulle began severing his long-time alliance with Israel and his support for Israel's nuclear weapons programs, this at precisely the same time John F. Kennedy was adamantly protesting Israel's drive for nuclear weapons. —MICHAEL COLLINS PIPER.]
The day of profitable exploitation by the white man of Africa or Asia is now over. From here on, profitable cooperation only is a rational and practical objective.
The idea or ideal of world unity has for over a half century been promoted by our subsidized foundations. It was never supported by history or current events. Today it is more discredited than ever.
The American people were sold two world wars on a general theory which was most irrational and contrary to the logic of past history and which has been continuously and conclusively proved fallacious by events since 1917.
According to this general theory, a war to end war and the world rule of law could enforce peace with justice. As we have so often repeated, the craziest phrase or idea of the 20th century was that of a war to end war. Anyone who thought a war could end war should have been sent to a mental hospital for psychiatric analysis and treatment.
One of the great insanities of America in the 20th century has been prohibitionism: Prohibit alcoholic drinking, prohibit war. If it is sin, it has to be stopped or prohibited.
The big U.S. idea: The world must be unified by force—ours or theirs. This idea is factually and logically all wrong. But is now accepted as a 100 percent American idea. If you want to be a conformist and not a non- conformist, a dissenter or a subversive, security risk, you must subscribe to this wrong idea.
The generation that started reading Mahan on sea power, Kipling on the White Man's Burden and the lesser breeds without the law, and numerous others on America's and Britain's manifest destiny, also began getting subsidies for embracing these ideas.
The subsidies came from British millionaires like Cecil Rhodes and Andrew Carnegie and from American millionaires like John D. Rockefeller. Technological trends and scientific progress were seen to support this "we-or-they-must-rule-the-world" ideology. World-Unification-by-Force cultists who are against sharing are phonies. These internationalists have a great time denouncing nationalism as selfish, predatory and generally immoral. They are even more violent in their attacks on certain extreme exponents of racism, that is, of a racism other than their own. But they are just as guilty as those whom they attack when it comes to sharing or to setting up a world order based on equality of opportunity and access.
We are prepared to join with fellow Americans in the defense of this country against any invasion by foreigners in search of living space.
But we are indisposed to fight or have Americans fight to protect any other area of people from similar wars or attacks. For such wars, our advice is that we should keep out of them, try to keep them localized and limited, try to avert or to end them by the use of good offices and negotiation with both sides.
We want no part of wars to liberate other peoples. Let them liberate themselves.
We want no part of wars to defend the status quo in other areas.
Government intervention in all phases of life on the home front has been on the rise since World War I. The Negroes on the warpath in the South are exploiting this trend. They are riding the wave of the future, really started by World War I and greatly accelerated by World War II.
The Southerners who are now fighting desperately the rising tide of color were all for the United States getting into World Wars I and II to make the world safe for democracy. They lacked the imagination or intel- ligence to foresee the consequences of the crusades the United States embarked upon.
[General Douglas MacArthur said:] "Global war has become a Frankenstein, to destroy both sides. No longer is it a weapon of adven- ture—the short cut to international power. If you lose, you are annihilated. If you win, you stand only to lose. No longer does it possess even the chance of the winner of a duel. It contains now only the germs of double suicide."
The MacArthur approach to war is not pacifist but operationalist, the line we have taken for over three decades.
The dynamics of hate and fear have run the West in two wars.To get America into two world wars, it was necessary to mobilize and utilize the dynamics of hate and fear.
These factors, of course, were always present and operative in the nationalistic wars of the two centuries and a half preceding the 20th century and following the era of the religious wars. But these factors were never, during the two centuries and a half from 1648 to 1900, as important as they have been in the western world during the 20th century. Democracy only came to maturity at the end of the 19th century.
Whipping up mass hate and fear is the easiest and surest way for a political leader in the western world to come to power and to wield power. It is now the approved way to get a country into a war or to keep it in a state of permanent war such as we are in right now.
The west in the 20th century taught Afro-Asians hate, fear. Now they hate and fear white rule—not communism. They never knew White Russian colonialism.
The strength of [Egyptian Pan-Arab leader Gamal] Nasser today is that he has the rising tide of anti-colonialism or of hate and fear of the white intruders in Africa and Asia to ride.
No political leader in Africa or Asia can have a better asset than to be disliked or denounced by us Americans. That we are "agin" communism is communism's greatest asset in Africa and Asia. The fact we are "for" a local ruler or regime in Africa or Asia is the worst liability for that ruler or regime.
The world minority of whites should have the brains to understand that exploiting or trying to exploit and use the dynamics of hate and fear never was and never will be good business for a privileged "have" minority. The dynamics of hate and fear can, in the long run, only prove fatal for the minority. The white West, or the haves, are the minority.
Permanent Mideast crisis has great headline news value for policy. How could our power elite in Washington get from 40 to 50 billion dollars a year for defense spending and foreign aid if they did not have war-crisis headlines from the Mideast and other areas in our papers most of the time? It is wonderful having a "colored world Hitler" who is nowhere near so dangerous or powerful as was Adolf.
The end result is certain. Time, numbers and space are with the colored world.They are with the Muslim nationalists and against the Israeli nationalists. What the colored world has lacked has been unity and dynamism for war on the whites.
Well, Israel is contributing to the unification and activation of the colored world for war against the colonial and other outsiders.
The [Russians] can't control but will aid and encourage Afrasians versus the U.S.-Israel. Our patriots and fanatical "antis" who want to bear the White Man's Burden over Asia and Africa now that the Europeans are being driven out are naive to suppose that Moscow controls or directs every trouble-making power factor or behavior pattern now giving Uncle Sam, the UN, the western colonial powers or Israel a headache. That is nonsense. It is one thing to aid and encourage a trouble maker and to profit from his operations. It is another to control or direct him.
American, western—and, apparently, recent Israeli policy and action— have been proceeding on the irrational premise that the col-oreds only respect force, wherefore, their white opponents have only to mobilize enough force against the coloreds.What makes this basic premise about force and the coloreds so asinine is simple arithmetic.
The white colonial powers and the Israelis, certainly, can never achieve ultimate and decisive force superiority over the colored world and the vast areas it populates. The western or white world, however, if it were guided by operational rationalism and calculation instead of mystical legalism, moralism and traditionalism, could easily formulate and work out propositions or deals with the colored world mutually advantageous to both or to all concerned. This is our "constructive" word.
Only a return to neutrality, as counseled in Washington's Farewell Address, could really ensure against our government starting and fighting a third world war against overwhelming numerical odds. Only the substitution of diplomacy for trying to play God or world policeman can provide an operationally practical alternative to total all-out war, if some day, some wild man, somewhere goes too far.
Only rational operationalism and the logic of enlightened national self- interest instead of obeying the imperatives of legalistic, moralistic and traditionalistic absolutes can avert World War III and with it, possibly, the extermination of most of the human race.
As war in the Mideast is stepped up, the U.S. is going to have to send hundreds of thousands, and, eventually, possibly, millions of American soldiers into that area to protect the oil wells and the thousands-of-miles- long pipelines carrying oil to the Mediterranean for export to the Europeans who must depend on it. The American people, of course, will not be told that American troops must be sent to the Mideast to protect the oil stakes.They will be told American intervention in that area is necessary to defend America by stopping communist aggression.
[Although, of course, Dennis wrote this in 1955—at the height of the Cold War—his remarks remain valid. Today, the "communist" enemy has been replaced by the "Islamo-Fascist" enemy and by "Middle East dictators with weapons of mass destruction."—MICHAEL COLLINS PIPER.]
If the colored world nationalist leaders can force the U.S. to deploy in perpetuity millions of American soldiers over the colored world to stop communist sin [or, in today's paradigm, "Islamo-Fascist" sin— MICHAEL COLLINS PIPER], what have those leaders to worry about? The more natives American or foreign troops kill, the better for the long run interests of native nationalisms now on the warpath against outsiders. How can the U.S. ever hope to pressure peoples living so near the margin of bare subsistence? The pressure will be only on the American taxpayers and conscripts for the wars of perpetual foreign intervention with no loot pay-off.
Hollywood couldn't have picked a more fitting war stage than Palestine. In this century we have gone forward to nuclear war and back- ward to holy war. This is the century of religious wars.
For the opening of the third great religious war of one lifetime, no area could be more appropriate than the Holy Land, the birth place of two, if not of three, of the world's truly great religions, Judaism, Christianity and Islam.
The staging and casting are superb and logical. Zion is the subject of Torah, Prophets, Psalms, Lamentations and many of the great classics of history like those of Joseph and Maimonides. It is the chosen land of the chosen people. It is under the special personal care of God, or rather, Yahweh, the God of Israel.
Now Uncle Sam has taken over. Of course, Allah is in the other camp, that of the Arabs. Yahweh helped the children of Israel take over the Promised Land more than once in the past four thousand years. But he never stopped their several expulsions and dispersions. This is what Uncle Sam must do in the future.
For reasons which we, like the theologians, are unable to give, Yahweh allowed the Chosen People to be driven out of the Chosen Land more than once. But Uncle Sam cannot permit anything like that to happen to the new Israel.
Uncle Sam is no defeatist. He does not put up with war, sin or aggression. He fights wars to end war. He is a perfectionist.
The believers in the great religions with a Messianic Promise used to wait and pray for the coming of the Messiah and the dawn of the Millennium. Americans, however, today must not just wait and pray for the Millennium; they must fare forth and fight for it—all over the planet. This is the new internationalism.
God never stopped war or evil in all history as Uncle Sam now must do. We do know Uncle Sam is committed to not allowing war or aggression to happen without getting in to stop war. He cannot allow the Chosen People to be driven out of Israel as they were, more than once, in the past. How fitting to have World War III start in the Holy Land.
What will be the nature, the extent, the duration and the end results of America's third war in one lifetime to end war and to stop evil?
Well, it is going to be interesting to watch the American casualties pile up in the Mideast as Uncle Sam tries to stop what Yahweh did not stop in the distant past. And it is going to be even more interesting to follow American mass reactions to the killed and wounded notices from the Crusade in the Holy Land.
America's contribution to religious war in the 20th century [was] mono-diabolism [i.e. the designation of a single "devil" enemy]. Now that Uncle Sam has taken over and is trying to do a job Yahweh never did, Uncle Sam can never admit any imputation of sin or evil against one of his allies or proteges.
One "ism" has to get security clearance. The other has to be branded as subversive. It won't be long now until Judaism and Islam will be up for security rating in the permanent war. [Dennis clearly saw that— ultimately—in the United States, Judaism would be given security clear- ance. Not so with Islam. Dennis saw it coming.—MICHAEL COLLINS PIPER.]
Nowadays, when Uncle Sam gets into a war, he resolves quite simply and decisively the whole issue of sin or as to who and what are good or right and who and what are evil and wrong. Sin is always and only on the side of the enemy. This was settled by Nuremberg and other war crimes trials.There is just one devil that is against Uncle Sam or not with him. [And George W. Bush did say it: "Either you are with us or you are with the terrorists."—MICHAEL COLLINS PIPER.]
The build-up of World War III goes on in the Mideast over Israel, oil, western colonialisms v. colored world nationalisms and the rationalization that the contest is one between the free world and communism. Israel and our western, colonial powers are our bulwark against communism and the colored world. This pattern is what Sir Norman Angell called in the April 15 (1956) London Times: "The Suicide of the West."
In the 20th century religious war pattern of the suicide of the West, the West is crusading, inflating and "technologizing" itself to death.
It is ending itself trying to end war.
It is preparing with nuclear fission weapons to render the world uninhabitable by way of trying to make the world safe for democracy. The leitmotif is the idea that foreign sin and devils cannot be lived with but must be wiped out.
Well, if man's know-how cannot end war or sin, it can now end the human race. We now have an infinite potential for annihilation. How long can our idealists hold in check their impulse to do good by pulling the global annihilation trigger?
If only we did not have nuclear fission and so much know-how, the current wave of madness might result in nothing worse than the bloody futilities of the Crusades or the religious wars of the Sixteenth and Seventeenth Centuries.
The German ex-Nazi military men, technicians and capitalists are quietly moving [into the Arab world] to cooperate and assimilate. If this does not make monkeys of people in America and Britain who fell for World War II propaganda about German "racism," we don't know what could! [It is interesting that Dennis also commented elsewhere that Hitler was "not rational enough" to have allied with the Arab world, for example, "having too high an opinion of the British and the white race"—a comment that will astound those who perceived Dennis as an unabashed admirer of Hitler.—MICHAEL COLLINS PIPER.]
If the Germans now gang up with [Russia] and the colored world anti- white nationalists, whom will the British and the French find to sign up for their third Holy war?
Is the answer: "Just the U.S. and Israel?" If it is, the cards will be heav- ily stacked against the third Anglo-American crusade.
[Dennis did not know at that point that France would break its alliance with Israel or that, in the period prior to the the second U.S. war against Iraq, France would emerge as an ally with Germany and Russia against the United States and Britain and Israel. As we shall see, Dennis also noted Russia's capacity to exploit Third World tensions with the United States and, likewise, foreshadowed Russia's defeat after its invasion of Muslim Afghanistan. —MICHAEL COLLINS PIPER.]
Russia has 21 million Muslims or over ten percent of its population, mostly concentrated in areas from which Russia gets most of its oil. The idea that Russian communists can convert to communism and control from Moscow the 200 million natives of Africa and the thirteen or fourteen hundred millions of Asia seems to us too silly to merit serious con- sideration. But Russia, as the only great power besides the U.S., can profit from the revolt of the colored world against the western powers.
The new religious war rationalization is to call it law enforcement. Attempts at an unattainable world rule of one law insure permanent reli- gious war, inflation, and socialism. About the only subject of general agreement among the shapers of American opinion and policy today, so far as war and power politics—inter- or intra-national—are concerned, is that there must be no return to neutralism.
Most of the rightists, criticizing the Supreme Court's desegregation decision and the use of federal armed force to enforce it, are, inconsistently and amusingly enough, all for American world leadership, American intervention, and American liberation by force of the people enslaved by the red devils of the Kremlin.
The Kremlin Kommunist Kommissars are now making out their former peerless leader and our noble war ally Stalin to have been a devil, a monster and guilty of all sorts of crimes or sin. As to Stalin, the Kremlin communists are following the line of the American anti-communists.The American anti-communists are following the Kremlin communist line.
This is really funny. But it is significant. The point being proved is that our allies under Stalin's successful and victorious leadership, in partnership with us, were just as big and just as bad devils as the Nazis and the Fascists. Stalin's sins were operational inevitables of communism. The biggest crime of the 20th century may turn out to be the eventual extinction of the human race by nuclear radiation in a war fought with the weapons which we, peace-loving, good Americans are now having our scientists perfect. We are developing these weapons to end war, communism and sin on this planet and thereby usher in the Millennium.
This aspect of America's wars since 1914 has to be seen in the light of history and of analogy with the religious wars of the 17th century and earlier. It was not so obvious in World War I as in World War II. The Kaiser and Emperor Franz Joseph of Austria Hungary had no counterparts of Hitler's Nazism or Mussolini's Fascism or of Russian and Chinese communism today.
World War I was turned into a sort of religious war as a matter of practical necessity in order to sell the American people intervention in that war on the side of the Allies. They could not have been lined up for that war by being told it would be good business for the United States or that it was necessary for American defense.
The Americans had to be told it was a war to end war. That made it for them a religious war. Selling World War II to the American people as a religious war was rendered easy by Hitler and his "ism."
Before each of the last two world wars and before the next one, Americans have had the delusion that foreign devils can be prevented or deterred from doing evil if only we do the right things. The right things are building up a tremendous war potential and constantly denouncing the foreign devils for being what they are and doing what they do. When these delusions prove wrong and when the foreign devil refuses to comply with one of our ultimatums, as did the Japanese before Pearl Harbor, and when the foreign devil at last strikes, as at Pearl Harbor, then the American ideology dictates, as up to that point, what action we, as a nation, must take.
The road block to debate is that almost no one of stature with a career or a livelihood to worry about is willing to risk it by telling the American or British people that they made a mistake by fighting two world wars which most of them still think they won.
To say anything like this is to invite the charge of defending the German devils and of arguing that it was not worthwhile to save the world from German conquest and domination. The answer is that the results of fighting to save the world from one devil have been far worse than would have been letting the Germans and the Russians fight it out or of letting the Chinese and the Japanese do likewise.
The answer is that there never was and there never will be just one devil from whom the world is to be saved by crusaders who, by defeating this one devil, can usher in the Millennium.
Non-interventionist America was a great success in the 19th century. An interventionist America has been a failure in world affairs since World War I. In world affairs since World War II, the U.S. has bitten off more than it can chew.
The idea that the British, the Germans or the Americans could, in the 20th century, repeat the Roman Empire of two millennia earlier was widely heralded in this country and the Western world. But it was always absurdly unrealistic.
World unification under anyone formula seems every day less and less possible. Law and force offer no formula for world peace. More tolerance is the only constructive approach to the war problem. War is becoming unacceptable by reason of nuclear weapons. Nuclear war can only be averted by appeal to reason and self-interest.
What is U.S. foreign policy or Mideast policy? It is intervention with force and money in every major foreign crisis or conflict in the name of abstractions like collective security, the world rule of law, defense, and the United Nations.
The United Nations are not united. Retaliatory co-annihilation is not defense. An interventionist policy is unpredictable and uncontrollable. Intervention can't succeed. Only non-intervention and playing a balance of power game could serve the United States.
The U.S. invented nuclear weapons and launched nuclear war ... our contribution to the decline of the west. Therefore, the U.S. must prevent nuclear war by deterring those with nuclear weapons from using them. Absurd! We predict, once the atomic trigger is pulled, total war is on.
A non-interventionist or a neutrality policy, now so often miscalled an isolationist policy, gives a nation like the U.S. far more initiative and power to shape events and determine results than our present policy of unlimited and unpredictable intervention.
Thanks to 40 years of American world meddling since 1917, the world is now in a bigger mess than ever. American intervention with money or force creates a situation or balance of forces which can only be maintained with continued and often increasing deployment of American force and money.
The latest in the international situation is the passing of the buck of defense to the United States by the British as well as by the Israelis. American foreign policy of intervention everywhere serves well only one major purpose, that of maintaining full employment through inflation and maximum spending by our government.
Expert lawyering or advocacy with words for any one side whether for a nation in the world contest or for a pressure group or movement, domestically, will not contribute to peace or better relations and stability. Internationalism, universalism and one worldism are all unrealistic and dangerous concepts or tools of thought. American universalism or internationalism is phony.
We [can] respect any sincere and consistent believer in and crusader for his particular cult of one worldism or universalism, be it religious, political or otherwise, ideologically or operationally, provided he does not propose to put over his one world order by the sword, as did the Christian Crusaders of yore and so many other brands of historical crackpots, or religious fanatics.
But to have American southerners—now as in the past, against racial integration or assimilation—preach internationalism, one worldism, the world rule of one law, and a mushy sort of universalism, well, that really nauseates any rational person.
The same goes for the leaders and voices of organized labor, all pro- fessing the deepest attachment to the values and norms of a one world internationalism or universalism, but all opposed to lowering our immi- gration barriers so as to allow our labor market to be flooded with millions of cheap workers from the colored world.
The organized labor internationalist is a phony just like the southern internationalist and one worlder who is against integration but who would have U.S. forces stationed all over the planet to enforce the world rule of law, while he is now flouting or denying the decision of our Supreme Court on integration.
When the liberals and internationalists were crusading for our entry into an anti-Nazi war, were they any less extremists than are the now so- called conservatives who are preaching anti-communism? The Revisionists are not and never were extremists. The extremist label should usually be applied to those in the war party.
The most extreme factor now operative and to be feared is war, including preparations for war.
War has progressively been becoming a more extreme factor since the middle of the 19th Century. War rolled the national debt up from $43 billion in 1940 to $279 billion in 1945. The Cold War has rolled it up to over $300 billion at present.
Can the extremism of war be successfully met with moderation? Must one extremism always be met with another extremism?
[John E] Kennedy seems to be more of a moderate than an extremist. Unfortunately, extremism, that is to say, some form or type of extremism usually has more mass appeal than a course of moderation. Kennedy is coming under considerable fire or criticism because he is not talking or acting tough enough for the taste of most people. Most people still do not accurately or rationally evaluate the new war factors.
[This was written on June 7, 1963, just less than six months before John F. Kennedy was killed in Dallas. In fact, Dennis' commentary fore- shadowed, in many respects, the subsequent widespread belief that JFK was indeed assassinated precisely because of his refusal to adopt the "tough" line of the Zionists and their Cold Warrior allies who today make up the ruling "neo-conservative" clique at the highest levels of the American government. —MICHAEL COLLINS PIPER.]
Most of the current criticism of Kennedy is based on his failure to make achievements for the United States or to display what the masses of our people like to think of as world leadership.
The Boobus Americanus or the American hick cannot understand why his country, the winner of World War II, should not now be the world leader and in control of the world situation.
Obviously, neither President Kennedy nor anyone of his spokesmen can tell the Boobus Americanus that America did not win World War II but that Russia and communism, only, thanks to American aid, won the war. And this is something that neither the American conservatives, so-called, nor the American liberals, so-called, are disposed to say openly or publicly. The conservatives talk tough against the foreign devil and against more government at home. This is paradoxical and irrational.
What could be more absurd than the demand of the American con- servative for a tougher policy against Communist Russia and China along with less government intervention, control and taxation at home?
What could be more paradoxical than being for war and against socialism? The great weakness of most American conservatives and lib- erals is their failure or inability to take an operational view of big modern war. They just cannot get it through their thick heads that big modern war has to be socialistic.
The permanent cold war now being carried on must downgrade the white world and upgrade the colored world, something our dumb Southerners [who supported] Woodrow Wilson's war to make the world safe for democracy never saw. DeGaulle sees this and wants to end the futile French war in North Africa.
[In fact, in 1962 DeGaulle surrendered French control of Algeria— much to the dismay of Israel—and a major new Arab republic was born. During the same period DeGaulle began severing his long-time alliance with Israel and his support for Israel's nuclear weapons programs, this at precisely the same time John F. Kennedy was adamantly protesting Israel's drive for nuclear weapons. —MICHAEL COLLINS PIPER.]
The day of profitable exploitation by the white man of Africa or Asia is now over. From here on, profitable cooperation only is a rational and practical objective.
The idea or ideal of world unity has for over a half century been promoted by our subsidized foundations. It was never supported by history or current events. Today it is more discredited than ever.
The American people were sold two world wars on a general theory which was most irrational and contrary to the logic of past history and which has been continuously and conclusively proved fallacious by events since 1917.
According to this general theory, a war to end war and the world rule of law could enforce peace with justice. As we have so often repeated, the craziest phrase or idea of the 20th century was that of a war to end war. Anyone who thought a war could end war should have been sent to a mental hospital for psychiatric analysis and treatment.
One of the great insanities of America in the 20th century has been prohibitionism: Prohibit alcoholic drinking, prohibit war. If it is sin, it has to be stopped or prohibited.
The big U.S. idea: The world must be unified by force—ours or theirs. This idea is factually and logically all wrong. But is now accepted as a 100 percent American idea. If you want to be a conformist and not a non- conformist, a dissenter or a subversive, security risk, you must subscribe to this wrong idea.
The generation that started reading Mahan on sea power, Kipling on the White Man's Burden and the lesser breeds without the law, and numerous others on America's and Britain's manifest destiny, also began getting subsidies for embracing these ideas.
The subsidies came from British millionaires like Cecil Rhodes and Andrew Carnegie and from American millionaires like John D. Rockefeller. Technological trends and scientific progress were seen to support this "we-or-they-must-rule-the-world" ideology. World-Unification-by-Force cultists who are against sharing are phonies. These internationalists have a great time denouncing nationalism as selfish, predatory and generally immoral. They are even more violent in their attacks on certain extreme exponents of racism, that is, of a racism other than their own. But they are just as guilty as those whom they attack when it comes to sharing or to setting up a world order based on equality of opportunity and access.
We are prepared to join with fellow Americans in the defense of this country against any invasion by foreigners in search of living space.
But we are indisposed to fight or have Americans fight to protect any other area of people from similar wars or attacks. For such wars, our advice is that we should keep out of them, try to keep them localized and limited, try to avert or to end them by the use of good offices and negotiation with both sides.
We want no part of wars to liberate other peoples. Let them liberate themselves.
We want no part of wars to defend the status quo in other areas.
Government intervention in all phases of life on the home front has been on the rise since World War I. The Negroes on the warpath in the South are exploiting this trend. They are riding the wave of the future, really started by World War I and greatly accelerated by World War II.
The Southerners who are now fighting desperately the rising tide of color were all for the United States getting into World Wars I and II to make the world safe for democracy. They lacked the imagination or intel- ligence to foresee the consequences of the crusades the United States embarked upon.
[General Douglas MacArthur said:] "Global war has become a Frankenstein, to destroy both sides. No longer is it a weapon of adven- ture—the short cut to international power. If you lose, you are annihilated. If you win, you stand only to lose. No longer does it possess even the chance of the winner of a duel. It contains now only the germs of double suicide."
The MacArthur approach to war is not pacifist but operationalist, the line we have taken for over three decades.
The dynamics of hate and fear have run the West in two wars.To get America into two world wars, it was necessary to mobilize and utilize the dynamics of hate and fear.
These factors, of course, were always present and operative in the nationalistic wars of the two centuries and a half preceding the 20th century and following the era of the religious wars. But these factors were never, during the two centuries and a half from 1648 to 1900, as important as they have been in the western world during the 20th century. Democracy only came to maturity at the end of the 19th century.
Whipping up mass hate and fear is the easiest and surest way for a political leader in the western world to come to power and to wield power. It is now the approved way to get a country into a war or to keep it in a state of permanent war such as we are in right now.
The west in the 20th century taught Afro-Asians hate, fear. Now they hate and fear white rule—not communism. They never knew White Russian colonialism.
The strength of [Egyptian Pan-Arab leader Gamal] Nasser today is that he has the rising tide of anti-colonialism or of hate and fear of the white intruders in Africa and Asia to ride.
No political leader in Africa or Asia can have a better asset than to be disliked or denounced by us Americans. That we are "agin" communism is communism's greatest asset in Africa and Asia. The fact we are "for" a local ruler or regime in Africa or Asia is the worst liability for that ruler or regime.
The world minority of whites should have the brains to understand that exploiting or trying to exploit and use the dynamics of hate and fear never was and never will be good business for a privileged "have" minority. The dynamics of hate and fear can, in the long run, only prove fatal for the minority. The white West, or the haves, are the minority.
Permanent Mideast crisis has great headline news value for policy. How could our power elite in Washington get from 40 to 50 billion dollars a year for defense spending and foreign aid if they did not have war-crisis headlines from the Mideast and other areas in our papers most of the time? It is wonderful having a "colored world Hitler" who is nowhere near so dangerous or powerful as was Adolf.
The end result is certain. Time, numbers and space are with the colored world.They are with the Muslim nationalists and against the Israeli nationalists. What the colored world has lacked has been unity and dynamism for war on the whites.
Well, Israel is contributing to the unification and activation of the colored world for war against the colonial and other outsiders.
The [Russians] can't control but will aid and encourage Afrasians versus the U.S.-Israel. Our patriots and fanatical "antis" who want to bear the White Man's Burden over Asia and Africa now that the Europeans are being driven out are naive to suppose that Moscow controls or directs every trouble-making power factor or behavior pattern now giving Uncle Sam, the UN, the western colonial powers or Israel a headache. That is nonsense. It is one thing to aid and encourage a trouble maker and to profit from his operations. It is another to control or direct him.
American, western—and, apparently, recent Israeli policy and action— have been proceeding on the irrational premise that the col-oreds only respect force, wherefore, their white opponents have only to mobilize enough force against the coloreds.What makes this basic premise about force and the coloreds so asinine is simple arithmetic.
The white colonial powers and the Israelis, certainly, can never achieve ultimate and decisive force superiority over the colored world and the vast areas it populates. The western or white world, however, if it were guided by operational rationalism and calculation instead of mystical legalism, moralism and traditionalism, could easily formulate and work out propositions or deals with the colored world mutually advantageous to both or to all concerned. This is our "constructive" word.
Only a return to neutrality, as counseled in Washington's Farewell Address, could really ensure against our government starting and fighting a third world war against overwhelming numerical odds. Only the substitution of diplomacy for trying to play God or world policeman can provide an operationally practical alternative to total all-out war, if some day, some wild man, somewhere goes too far.
Only rational operationalism and the logic of enlightened national self- interest instead of obeying the imperatives of legalistic, moralistic and traditionalistic absolutes can avert World War III and with it, possibly, the extermination of most of the human race.
As war in the Mideast is stepped up, the U.S. is going to have to send hundreds of thousands, and, eventually, possibly, millions of American soldiers into that area to protect the oil wells and the thousands-of-miles- long pipelines carrying oil to the Mediterranean for export to the Europeans who must depend on it. The American people, of course, will not be told that American troops must be sent to the Mideast to protect the oil stakes.They will be told American intervention in that area is necessary to defend America by stopping communist aggression.
[Although, of course, Dennis wrote this in 1955—at the height of the Cold War—his remarks remain valid. Today, the "communist" enemy has been replaced by the "Islamo-Fascist" enemy and by "Middle East dictators with weapons of mass destruction."—MICHAEL COLLINS PIPER.]
If the colored world nationalist leaders can force the U.S. to deploy in perpetuity millions of American soldiers over the colored world to stop communist sin [or, in today's paradigm, "Islamo-Fascist" sin— MICHAEL COLLINS PIPER], what have those leaders to worry about? The more natives American or foreign troops kill, the better for the long run interests of native nationalisms now on the warpath against outsiders. How can the U.S. ever hope to pressure peoples living so near the margin of bare subsistence? The pressure will be only on the American taxpayers and conscripts for the wars of perpetual foreign intervention with no loot pay-off.
Hollywood couldn't have picked a more fitting war stage than Palestine. In this century we have gone forward to nuclear war and back- ward to holy war. This is the century of religious wars.
For the opening of the third great religious war of one lifetime, no area could be more appropriate than the Holy Land, the birth place of two, if not of three, of the world's truly great religions, Judaism, Christianity and Islam.
The staging and casting are superb and logical. Zion is the subject of Torah, Prophets, Psalms, Lamentations and many of the great classics of history like those of Joseph and Maimonides. It is the chosen land of the chosen people. It is under the special personal care of God, or rather, Yahweh, the God of Israel.
Now Uncle Sam has taken over. Of course, Allah is in the other camp, that of the Arabs. Yahweh helped the children of Israel take over the Promised Land more than once in the past four thousand years. But he never stopped their several expulsions and dispersions. This is what Uncle Sam must do in the future.
For reasons which we, like the theologians, are unable to give, Yahweh allowed the Chosen People to be driven out of the Chosen Land more than once. But Uncle Sam cannot permit anything like that to happen to the new Israel.
Uncle Sam is no defeatist. He does not put up with war, sin or aggression. He fights wars to end war. He is a perfectionist.
The believers in the great religions with a Messianic Promise used to wait and pray for the coming of the Messiah and the dawn of the Millennium. Americans, however, today must not just wait and pray for the Millennium; they must fare forth and fight for it—all over the planet. This is the new internationalism.
God never stopped war or evil in all history as Uncle Sam now must do. We do know Uncle Sam is committed to not allowing war or aggression to happen without getting in to stop war. He cannot allow the Chosen People to be driven out of Israel as they were, more than once, in the past. How fitting to have World War III start in the Holy Land.
What will be the nature, the extent, the duration and the end results of America's third war in one lifetime to end war and to stop evil?
Well, it is going to be interesting to watch the American casualties pile up in the Mideast as Uncle Sam tries to stop what Yahweh did not stop in the distant past. And it is going to be even more interesting to follow American mass reactions to the killed and wounded notices from the Crusade in the Holy Land.
America's contribution to religious war in the 20th century [was] mono-diabolism [i.e. the designation of a single "devil" enemy]. Now that Uncle Sam has taken over and is trying to do a job Yahweh never did, Uncle Sam can never admit any imputation of sin or evil against one of his allies or proteges.
One "ism" has to get security clearance. The other has to be branded as subversive. It won't be long now until Judaism and Islam will be up for security rating in the permanent war. [Dennis clearly saw that— ultimately—in the United States, Judaism would be given security clear- ance. Not so with Islam. Dennis saw it coming.—MICHAEL COLLINS PIPER.]
Nowadays, when Uncle Sam gets into a war, he resolves quite simply and decisively the whole issue of sin or as to who and what are good or right and who and what are evil and wrong. Sin is always and only on the side of the enemy. This was settled by Nuremberg and other war crimes trials.There is just one devil that is against Uncle Sam or not with him. [And George W. Bush did say it: "Either you are with us or you are with the terrorists."—MICHAEL COLLINS PIPER.]
The build-up of World War III goes on in the Mideast over Israel, oil, western colonialisms v. colored world nationalisms and the rationalization that the contest is one between the free world and communism. Israel and our western, colonial powers are our bulwark against communism and the colored world. This pattern is what Sir Norman Angell called in the April 15 (1956) London Times: "The Suicide of the West."
In the 20th century religious war pattern of the suicide of the West, the West is crusading, inflating and "technologizing" itself to death.
It is ending itself trying to end war.
It is preparing with nuclear fission weapons to render the world uninhabitable by way of trying to make the world safe for democracy. The leitmotif is the idea that foreign sin and devils cannot be lived with but must be wiped out.
Well, if man's know-how cannot end war or sin, it can now end the human race. We now have an infinite potential for annihilation. How long can our idealists hold in check their impulse to do good by pulling the global annihilation trigger?
If only we did not have nuclear fission and so much know-how, the current wave of madness might result in nothing worse than the bloody futilities of the Crusades or the religious wars of the Sixteenth and Seventeenth Centuries.
The German ex-Nazi military men, technicians and capitalists are quietly moving [into the Arab world] to cooperate and assimilate. If this does not make monkeys of people in America and Britain who fell for World War II propaganda about German "racism," we don't know what could! [It is interesting that Dennis also commented elsewhere that Hitler was "not rational enough" to have allied with the Arab world, for example, "having too high an opinion of the British and the white race"—a comment that will astound those who perceived Dennis as an unabashed admirer of Hitler.—MICHAEL COLLINS PIPER.]
If the Germans now gang up with [Russia] and the colored world anti- white nationalists, whom will the British and the French find to sign up for their third Holy war?
Is the answer: "Just the U.S. and Israel?" If it is, the cards will be heav- ily stacked against the third Anglo-American crusade.
[Dennis did not know at that point that France would break its alliance with Israel or that, in the period prior to the the second U.S. war against Iraq, France would emerge as an ally with Germany and Russia against the United States and Britain and Israel. As we shall see, Dennis also noted Russia's capacity to exploit Third World tensions with the United States and, likewise, foreshadowed Russia's defeat after its invasion of Muslim Afghanistan. —MICHAEL COLLINS PIPER.]
Russia has 21 million Muslims or over ten percent of its population, mostly concentrated in areas from which Russia gets most of its oil. The idea that Russian communists can convert to communism and control from Moscow the 200 million natives of Africa and the thirteen or fourteen hundred millions of Asia seems to us too silly to merit serious con- sideration. But Russia, as the only great power besides the U.S., can profit from the revolt of the colored world against the western powers.
The new religious war rationalization is to call it law enforcement. Attempts at an unattainable world rule of one law insure permanent reli- gious war, inflation, and socialism. About the only subject of general agreement among the shapers of American opinion and policy today, so far as war and power politics—inter- or intra-national—are concerned, is that there must be no return to neutralism.
Most of the rightists, criticizing the Supreme Court's desegregation decision and the use of federal armed force to enforce it, are, inconsistently and amusingly enough, all for American world leadership, American intervention, and American liberation by force of the people enslaved by the red devils of the Kremlin.
The Kremlin Kommunist Kommissars are now making out their former peerless leader and our noble war ally Stalin to have been a devil, a monster and guilty of all sorts of crimes or sin. As to Stalin, the Kremlin communists are following the line of the American anti-communists.The American anti-communists are following the Kremlin communist line.
This is really funny. But it is significant. The point being proved is that our allies under Stalin's successful and victorious leadership, in partnership with us, were just as big and just as bad devils as the Nazis and the Fascists. Stalin's sins were operational inevitables of communism. The biggest crime of the 20th century may turn out to be the eventual extinction of the human race by nuclear radiation in a war fought with the weapons which we, peace-loving, good Americans are now having our scientists perfect. We are developing these weapons to end war, communism and sin on this planet and thereby usher in the Millennium.
