Ils nous ont déjà fait le coup à l'époque de Saddam:
"C'est un fou! Il massacre sa propre population!"
(Et, de même, il s'avéra par la suite qu'il s'agissait en fait d'un autre gros mensonge médiatique sioniste!)
L'ancien candidat à la présidence US John McCain, un agent sioniste, ainsi que le sénateur Joe Lieberman, un juif orthodoxe sioniste, sont à l'avant-garde du combat sioniste mondialiste pour la perpétuation des guerres impérialistes étatsuniennes: ils proposent de bombarder la Libye. (Notez qu'ils ont depuis émis une rétractation, soulignant qu'il ne s'agit que d'une seule des options au menu.)
Et
il y en a comme Chris Bollyn pour prétendre que Khadafi est un agent
du Mossad et que l'opération en Libye pour aider les rebelles concerne
vraiment la libération du peuple! Bull-Loon s'est mis les pieds dans
les plats!
Senators Lieberman and McCain discuss potential military option in Libya - WASHINGTON POST
Sen. McCain calls for US airstrikes on LIbya, no-fly zone - NYPOST
Lieberman: Obama should be forceful with Libya
JOHN McCAIN: “ON A PAS FINI DE FAIRE LA GUERRE AU RESTE DU MONDE”
McCain to Obama: 'America should lead'
John McCain Tells President Obama To 'Get Tough' On Libya
VIDEO - McCain and Lieberman Urge Greater US Involvement in Libya
Tunisie : McCain et Lieberman « soutiennent » les révolutions en Tunisie et en Libye
McCain, Lieberman: U.S. should arm Libyan rebels
Lieberman: West should deal with Iran and Syria like Libya
Surprise, Surprise, Surprise–Lieberman Suggests No-Fly Zone an Option in Syria if Violence Escalates
Senators Kerry, McCain Push Resolution to Support Libya War
Neocon Foreign Policy
U.K., France draft resolution to impose ‘no-fly zone’ over Libya
Libyan rebel leader calls for ‘immediate action’ on no-fly zone
Gates, Others Talk Up US No-Fly Zone in Libya
France recognizes Libya opposition as legitimate representatives of the people
Une zone d’exclusion aérienne au-dessus de la Libye : n’oublions pas celles imposées à l’Irak de 1991 à 2003
"No-Fly” Zone in Libya: A Neocon Trick
Chavez sur la Libye : avons nous tous été trompés une fois de plus par les médias sionistes ?
Gaddafi’s fate to be like Hitler’s: Poll
Zone d’exclusion aérienne en Libye? Cohn-Bendit, l’impérialiste vert
‘Foreigners plotted Libya revolution’
Comment les soi-disant gardiens de la liberté d’expression musèlent le messager
Le colonel Kadhafi est "fou" et "assoiffé de sang" tandis que les auteurs de l’invasion d’Iraq qui a coûté la vie à un million d’Irakiens, ceux-là mêmes qui ont kidnappé et torturé en notre nom, sont, eux, tout à fait sains d’esprit et pas le moins du monde assoiffés de sang et s’autoproclament une fois de plus les arbitres de la "stabilité". Mais quelque chose a changé. La réalité n’est plus ce que les puissants décident qu’elle doit être.
Now Lieberman, McCain Want U.S. to Make War on Libya
AFP
At the height of the Libyan crisis, with revolutionary groups fighting against President Muammar Qadaffi, Sens. John McCain (R-Ariz.) and Joe Lieberman (I-Conn.) went on national television to argue that the U.S. government should pick a side, namely the rebels, and give them weapons so they can fight the current Libyan (or perhaps we should say west Libyan) government.
The two senior legislators were in Cairo, Egypt, when they spoke to U.S. journalists, claiming to be on a “fact-finding mission”—Washington-speak for a personal junket at a huge cost to taxpayers.
“This is a real moment of choice for the international community,” Lieberman told reporters. “Will the world stand by and let a leader like Muammar Qadaffi slaughter his own people?”
And what would Lieberman—who has never served a day in his life in the military—have the United States do?
“I think we ought to recognize the opposition provisional government as the legitimate government of Libya, and we ought to give that government certainly humanitarian assistance, and military arms,” said Lieberman.
McCain agreed, proposing that the United States should also send fighter jets to Libya to enforce a no-fly zone over the sovereign country.
“Libyan pilots aren’t going to fly if there is a no-fly zone, and we could get air assets there to ensure it,” said McCain. In addition, he added, Washington should “recognize [the] provisional government that they are trying to set already up in the eastern part of Libya and help them with material assistance.”
Not stopping there, McCain added that the United States should be willing to meddle in every conflict around the world, including the entire Middle East as well as Iran and China.
“The president should reverse the terrible decision he made in 2009 to not support the demonstrators in Tehran,” said McCain. “Stand up for democracy in Iran, and tell those people that we are with them. And that should be true not only throughout the Arab countries but as far as China and other parts of the world as well.” (Iran is not an Arab country.)
At a time when America is struggling with overwhelming debt, the idea of spending taxpayers’ dollars flying two Washington legislators to the Middle East just to grandstand shows the arrogance and insanity of the imperialistic mentality gripping Washington. The costs are huge for a trip like this.
AFP contacted the Congressional Research Service (CRS) to ascertain the price tag for flying the two senators around the Middle East and the security needed to protect them. AFP was told, however, that the information was not immediately available, because the travel receipts had not been logged yet.
But since CRS only tallies immediate costs billed directly to Congress, the extra expense is seldom publicized as it is quietly dumped on the Pentagon, which usually pays for flying legislators to problem areas of the world and then protecting them with U.S. troops.
Since 2001, The Hill, a Capitol Hill daily, estimated the cost of congressional travel to be in the neighborhood of $50 million.
The high price would be worth it if these types of trips benefited the taxpayers—the people who pay the bills and bleed in the wars. But it is these delusions of empire voiced by Lieberman and McCain that have placed this once great country in such a dire strait.
The policy the United States should adopt was presented clearly by AFP editors in the EMERGENCY LETTER that went out to all our readers during our Presidents Day publishing break. (Be looking in your mailbox for that important emergency update.—Ed.) It stated, in part: “We will be blamed for the death and destruction if we don’t start a new ‘hands-off’ the Middle East policy instead of our worn-out Israel-first and internationalist mindset.”
In the letter, we urged readers to immediately contact their representatives in Washington and tell them to adopt this “hands-off policy” now.
People in the Middle East are revolting against corruption and the old policies. They want less meddling on the part of the U.S. and to be free of U.S. and Israeli control. We can no longer afford to be the world’s police force. When Washington wakes up to this reality, we may once again find ourselves on the side of peace.
VIDEO - The War Party
La déclaration des ultra sionistes bellicistes John McCain et Joe Liberman (juif orthodoxe) en vue d'une opération militaire en Libye (ENGLISH)
Plus de documentation sur le plan néocon de remodelage du Moyen-Orient ici et sur l'instrumentalisation des révoltes des pays arabes ici.
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... Cela e fait que suivre le programme néocon planifié depuis 30 ans.]
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.
The Piper Report Mar 7, 2011
Le mouvement juif Néo-conservateur: du trotskisme au bellicisme sioniste
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
Les fauteurs de guerres
Non-interventionnisme
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
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.
11 Mars 2011
Ginette Hess Skandrani
Je me refuse à hurler bêtement avec les loups. L’Occident s’est trouvé un nouveau diable et accuse Kadhafi de tous les maux de la planète. Il est le pire des dictateurs, un nouveau Hitler, un boucher, un sanguinaire. On aura tout entendu. Il est sûr que ce n’est pas un démocrate, mais il est certainement moins pire que les Bush père et fils qui sont responsables de centaine de milliers de morts irakiens, ou les Netanayou, Sharon ou autres criminels israéliens qui ont massacré des milliers de Palestiniens.
Je connais bien la Libye, y ayant séjourné assez souvent. J’ai aimé ce pays, si différent des autres pays du Maghreb plus ou moins occidentalisés. Aller en Libye, c’était se dépolluer l’esprit, on avait l’impression d’arriver sur une autre planète. Pas de Mac do, pas de coca cola, pas d’hypermarchés, peu de banques, pas de pub à part des slogans anti-impérialistes et quelques affiches du Guide. Mais si peu à côté de la Tunisie où la photo de Ben Ali trônait partout.
J’ai participé à plusieurs conférences : sur l’écologie, la paix et le désarmement, sur la Méditerranée, la démocratie directe, le colonialisme, le statut de la femme, le sionisme, etc.
J’ai également été invitée à des remises du prix Kadhafi à des peuples opprimés : les Kanaks, les Amérindiens, les enfants bosniaques etc.
J’ai assisté à des congrès de base dans des quartiers de Tripoli ou sous la tente dans le désert. J’ai visité beaucoup d’endroits riches d’histoire et de vestiges du passé. Sebratha et ses fouilles, romaines, phéniciennes, le magnifique site de Leptis Magna.
J’ai rarement rencontré des touristes. La Libye est un pays qui hante depuis de nombreuses années la conscience des populations occidentales et le nom de Kadhafi a toujours suscité au-delà de l’admiration que lui portaient tous les révolutionnaires de la planète, des réactions hostiles de tous les autres.
Très peu de sociétés et de dirigeants politiques ont autant occupé la scène médiatique et dans le même temps, sont aussi mal connus.
Mis à part le nom de Kadhafi, la plupart des gens ignorent tout de l’histoire de ce pays, de sa population, de ses structures socio-économiques, de la place de l’Islam dans sa société et des enjeux politiques réels de ce pays qui jouit au Maghreb d’une importante position géostratégique, d’une ouverture sur toute l’Afrique et qui est au carrefour des relations arabo-africaines. Les interventions médiatiques, les dénonciations, les analyses des uns et des autres le montrent bien.
J’ai aidé à organiser des rencontres de la jeunesse, des femmes des cinq continents. J’y ai croisé des tas de personnalités : Nelson Mendela, Ben Bellah, Laurent Désiré Kabila (avant son accession au pouvoir), Chavez (pas encore président), Museveni etc. que je n’aurais certainement pu rencontrer nulle part ailleurs.
J’y ai surtout été quand la Libye était sous embargo à partir de 1990 et c’était toute une aventure pour y arriver. Il fallait prendre un avion pour la Tunisie. Arriver à Djerba et continuer en voiture en passant par Ben Gardane, passer la frontière et remonter par le désert jusqu’à Tripoli. Mais comme Ben Ali m’avait interdit le passage par la Tunisie, vu que j’avais dénoncé les tortures, il m’a fallu passer par Malte et faire la traversée de nuit, sur des bateaux mal entretenus jusqu’à la côte libyenne. Il fallait vraiment aimer ce pays et ce peuple pour accepter toutes ces contraintes.
L’embargo était également terrible pour toute la jeunesse libyenne qui voyait à travers les paraboles toutes les jeunesses du monde s’amuser, voyager, alors qu’ils étaient prisonniers sur leur terre à cause de l’embargo. Ils en voulaient terriblement à l’Occident qui les pénalisait, alors qu’ils n’étaient pour rien dans les attentats qui étaient reprochés à certains de leurs dirigeants.
Quand Mouammar Kadhafi a commencé à faire des compromis avec les USA pour se libérer de cet embargo qui plombait son peuple, j’ai compris son attitude, mais je n’ai pas approuvé le fait qu’il se soit agenouillé devant les impérialistes, alors qu’il passait son temps à dénoncer le sionisme, le colonialisme et également l’esclavage. Il a aidé tant de mouvements révolutionnaires à se libérer : les Kanaks, les Basques, les Irlandais, les Amérindiens et également beaucoup d’Africains. Il a soutenu Nelson Mandela et l’ANC pendant toute la durée de l’apartheid.
Il avait compris que les jeunes étaient prêts à se révolter, et certains l’ont fait, il savait qu’il fallait qu’il lève cet embargo qui nuisait au développement de l’économie et à l’importation des technologies nouvelles, comme en confinant les Libyens sur leur terre.
J’ai beaucoup aimé le laboratoire d’essai de l’implantation de la démocratie directe dans toutes les régions. C’était quelque chose d’innovant qui aurait pu marcher. Tous les habitants d’un quartier, d’une localité, d’une région participaient aux réunions qui devaient décider d’un projet. J’ai assisté à quelques débats qui étaient souvent très houleux et très longs. Ils pouvaient durer deux jours, jusqu’à ce qu’une décision trouve son approbation. Les secrétaires de séance transmettaient le texte aux congrès secondaires qui les faisaient remonter au congrès général.
Ce que j’ai moins aimé c’est le contrôle qu’exerçaient les comités révolutionnaires qui étaient des super flics, qui dépendaient directement de Kadhafi et n’avaient de compte à rendre à personne d’autre.
J’ai arrêté d’y aller lorsque l’embargo a été levé et que le congrès général s’est précipité dans les bras des USA. Dommage pour nous, nous avions perdu un interlocuteur et un grand soutien des peuples opprimés.
Kadhafi a toujours soutenu les Palestiniens. Il était un des initiateurs de l’association « Un seul Etat démocratique en Israël Palestine ». Il a d’ailleurs aidé à financer la conférence de Lausanne.
Il a également aidé à la construction de l’Unité Africaine et il était en train de préparer les Etats Unis d’Afrique afin que les ressources africaines restent en Afrique.
Je garde une profonde admiration pour le peuple libyen.
Je pense sincèrement que Kadhafi a fait son temps et qu’il doit laisser la place à d’autres membres du congrès général qui gère le pays. Vu ce qui s’est passé dernièrement, il faudrait organiser une réunion du congrès général qui doit s’ouvrir également aux insurgés ainsi qu’à tous les opposants.
Mais ce n’est pas à l’Otan, ni aux USA, ni aux Européens ni à la Ligue Arabe à décider qui doit ou ne doit pas gouverner la Libye.
Que Sarkozy qui a reçu en grande pompe Mouammar Kadhafi parce qu’il voulait lui fourguer des rafales et une centrale nucléaire, mais surtout pour l’entraîner dans l’Union Pour La Méditerranée afin d’y faire accepter Israël dont les pays arabes ne voulaient pas, se permette tout à coup de prôner une intervention militaire, me semble aberrant et surtout stupide à brève échéance.
Tous ceux qui appellent à cette couverture aérienne qu’ils ont surnommée faussement humanitaire, ou demandent l’aide des Américains pour déloger le guide, devraient se souvenir de ce qu’a donné l’aide américaine à l’Irak. Le peuple irakien a régressé de dix ans et est encore toujours en train de payer l’invasion de son pays alors que d’autres lui pompent son pétrole. N’oublions pas que la Libye attire également tous les rapaces de l’or noir.
Nous n’avons pas à nous ingérer dans la politique Libyenne, et il est probable qu'une intervention armée ne ramènerait nullement le calme. En effet, la particularité de ce pays est son fonctionnement tribal. Trois régions se disputent le contrôle du pays: la Tripolitaine, avec 2 millions d'habitants sur plus de 6 millions; la Cyrénaïque, actuellement insurgée, forte de 2 millions d'habitants aussi; elle a des tendances islamistes et sécessionnistes. Enfin le sud, dépeuplé, désertique, la province de Fezzan, qui prête actuellement main forte à la Cyrénaïque.
Si l'on s'en tient à l'intérêt immédiat de l'Occident, le maintien du régime de Kadhafi est de loin une garantie de stabilité des prix du pétrole et du contrôle de l'émigration. Toute intervention favoriserait au contraire la balkanisation de tout le pays, l'instabilité et la radicalisation. Au départ, les USA espéraient prendre rapidement le contrôle de tout le pays, à la faveur d'un renversement du pouvoir à l'égyptienne. Il semble bien que dans le cadre de ce plan ils aient commencé par armer les opposants, tandis que les mercenaires de Blackwater s'infiltraient dans la place pour organiser des massacres que les media pourraient présenter comme des initiatives sanguinaires de Khadafi.
Mais c'est d'ores et déjà une opération ratée, où les USA ont montré le degré de désinformation qui est celui de la classe dirigeante. Et le risque pour eux est réel que se constitue un front de la jeunesse contre Israël et les USA. Est-ce que les USA pourront reprendre le contrôle de la Libye pour en faire une base de reconquête tant des pays arabes que de l'Afrique noire? Pour l'instant, l''insurrection est en phase de repli, et se plaint amèrement de ne pas avoir reçu les soutiens promis à temps pour résister. Mouammar Kadhafi n’a pas plié et continue à résister, malgré toutes les pressions et les menaces.
Actuellement, seul le machiavélisme israélien a intérêt à une franche intervention US par le biais de l'OTAN, dans l'idée que toute situation chaotique lui convient mieux qu'un régime instruit par l'expérience, et qui pourrait relancer la constitution d'un grand front régional uni contre Israël.
Il faut souligner l'habileté actuelle du guide de la Jamrhiya, qui insiste sur les traités conclus avec chacun des pays de l'Otan et avec Israël, en brandissant le chantage à l'invasion migratoire, à l'islamisation, et à la hausse des prix du pétrole. Il multiplie les interventions télévisées afin de rappeler à l'Occident la diversité des menaces qu'il peut faire peser sur leurs intérêts, et il est bon de rappeler aussi qu'il a tout d'abord pris le pouvoir sous la bannière des idéaux de Nasser, et avait dans une première étape nationalisé le pétrole (la Libye est le pays qui tire le plus de bénéfices per capita de ses ressources pétrolières).
Espérons que, s'il parvient à reprendre la situation en main, il sache favoriser l'émergence d'un successeur capable de reconquérir l'opinion de la jeunesse avec de réelles ouvertures démocratiques, en rompant certaines alliances funestes, et en renouant avec l'anti-impérialisme, pan arabe et panafricain.
Paris, 10 mars 2011
Kadhafi était un tyran sanguinaire. Je le croyais puis j’ai changé d’avis.
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
A Warning for U.S. Warmongers: Keep Hands Off Libya
By Willis A. Carto
If the mainstream media is to be believed, Muammar Qadaffi is an unstable personality. We are glad that he is the president of Libya, not the United States. That being said, we should keep our greedy hands off that country. We have no business there. No—we don’t need Libyan oil. We have more than enough in the ground right here and in Alaska to run American industry, automobiles, diesel locomotives and trucks, for heating etc. for the next century.
Editor Emeritus Jim Tucker, on page one of this edition of AFP, reports that we are currently engaged in “undeclared military actions 365 days a year across the globe, including various clandestine operations in Pakistan and elsewhere.” So why not Libya, too?
Well, the reason is simple. It is time to stop. It is time to halt internationalist, undeclared, pointless, expensive, no-win aggression and time for sanity in foreign affairs to begin anew.
It is time for Americans to mind America’s own business that we know a little about, not the business of other countries, groups and tribes that we only think we understand.
If you think that this sounds like the policy recommended by George Washington and all of the other Founders and followed by all of the presidents up to Woodrow Wilson who maneuvered us into a European war which then became World War I, you are right.
As Dwight Eisenhower sagely observed, America must reject the military-industrial complex. The tragedy of “our” foreign policy is driven not by what our leaders believe is best for the people but by the drive for profits by the munitions makers, bankers and other riff-raff who profit from death, debt, destruction and defeat.
Stay out of Libya. Reject the importunings of traitors and foreign interests like Israel. Let’s do what is right for America for a change. #
C’est à Israël qu’il faut s’en prendre, pas à la Libye !
Dissident Voice - Pour consulter l’original : http://dissidentvoice.org/2011/03/t...
Je connais bien la Libye, y ayant séjourné assez souvent. J’ai aimé ce pays, si différent des autres pays du Maghreb plus ou moins occidentalisés. Aller en Libye, c’était se dépolluer l’esprit, on avait l’impression d’arriver sur une autre planète. Pas de Mac do, pas de coca cola, pas d’hypermarchés, peu de banques, pas de pub à part des slogans anti-impérialistes et quelques affiches du Guide. Mais si peu à côté de la Tunisie où la photo de Ben Ali trônait partout.
J’ai participé à plusieurs conférences : sur l’écologie, la paix et le désarmement, sur la Méditerranée, la démocratie directe, le colonialisme, le statut de la femme, le sionisme, etc.
J’ai également été invitée à des remises du prix Kadhafi à des peuples opprimés : les Kanaks, les Amérindiens, les enfants bosniaques etc.
J’ai assisté à des congrès de base dans des quartiers de Tripoli ou sous la tente dans le désert. J’ai visité beaucoup d’endroits riches d’histoire et de vestiges du passé. Sebratha et ses fouilles, romaines, phéniciennes, le magnifique site de Leptis Magna.
J’ai rarement rencontré des touristes. La Libye est un pays qui hante depuis de nombreuses années la conscience des populations occidentales et le nom de Kadhafi a toujours suscité au-delà de l’admiration que lui portaient tous les révolutionnaires de la planète, des réactions hostiles de tous les autres.
Très peu de sociétés et de dirigeants politiques ont autant occupé la scène médiatique et dans le même temps, sont aussi mal connus.
Mis à part le nom de Kadhafi, la plupart des gens ignorent tout de l’histoire de ce pays, de sa population, de ses structures socio-économiques, de la place de l’Islam dans sa société et des enjeux politiques réels de ce pays qui jouit au Maghreb d’une importante position géostratégique, d’une ouverture sur toute l’Afrique et qui est au carrefour des relations arabo-africaines. Les interventions médiatiques, les dénonciations, les analyses des uns et des autres le montrent bien.
J’ai aidé à organiser des rencontres de la jeunesse, des femmes des cinq continents. J’y ai croisé des tas de personnalités : Nelson Mendela, Ben Bellah, Laurent Désiré Kabila (avant son accession au pouvoir), Chavez (pas encore président), Museveni etc. que je n’aurais certainement pu rencontrer nulle part ailleurs.
J’y ai surtout été quand la Libye était sous embargo à partir de 1990 et c’était toute une aventure pour y arriver. Il fallait prendre un avion pour la Tunisie. Arriver à Djerba et continuer en voiture en passant par Ben Gardane, passer la frontière et remonter par le désert jusqu’à Tripoli. Mais comme Ben Ali m’avait interdit le passage par la Tunisie, vu que j’avais dénoncé les tortures, il m’a fallu passer par Malte et faire la traversée de nuit, sur des bateaux mal entretenus jusqu’à la côte libyenne. Il fallait vraiment aimer ce pays et ce peuple pour accepter toutes ces contraintes.
L’embargo était également terrible pour toute la jeunesse libyenne qui voyait à travers les paraboles toutes les jeunesses du monde s’amuser, voyager, alors qu’ils étaient prisonniers sur leur terre à cause de l’embargo. Ils en voulaient terriblement à l’Occident qui les pénalisait, alors qu’ils n’étaient pour rien dans les attentats qui étaient reprochés à certains de leurs dirigeants.
Quand Mouammar Kadhafi a commencé à faire des compromis avec les USA pour se libérer de cet embargo qui plombait son peuple, j’ai compris son attitude, mais je n’ai pas approuvé le fait qu’il se soit agenouillé devant les impérialistes, alors qu’il passait son temps à dénoncer le sionisme, le colonialisme et également l’esclavage. Il a aidé tant de mouvements révolutionnaires à se libérer : les Kanaks, les Basques, les Irlandais, les Amérindiens et également beaucoup d’Africains. Il a soutenu Nelson Mandela et l’ANC pendant toute la durée de l’apartheid.
Il avait compris que les jeunes étaient prêts à se révolter, et certains l’ont fait, il savait qu’il fallait qu’il lève cet embargo qui nuisait au développement de l’économie et à l’importation des technologies nouvelles, comme en confinant les Libyens sur leur terre.
J’ai beaucoup aimé le laboratoire d’essai de l’implantation de la démocratie directe dans toutes les régions. C’était quelque chose d’innovant qui aurait pu marcher. Tous les habitants d’un quartier, d’une localité, d’une région participaient aux réunions qui devaient décider d’un projet. J’ai assisté à quelques débats qui étaient souvent très houleux et très longs. Ils pouvaient durer deux jours, jusqu’à ce qu’une décision trouve son approbation. Les secrétaires de séance transmettaient le texte aux congrès secondaires qui les faisaient remonter au congrès général.
Ce que j’ai moins aimé c’est le contrôle qu’exerçaient les comités révolutionnaires qui étaient des super flics, qui dépendaient directement de Kadhafi et n’avaient de compte à rendre à personne d’autre.
J’ai arrêté d’y aller lorsque l’embargo a été levé et que le congrès général s’est précipité dans les bras des USA. Dommage pour nous, nous avions perdu un interlocuteur et un grand soutien des peuples opprimés.
Kadhafi a toujours soutenu les Palestiniens. Il était un des initiateurs de l’association « Un seul Etat démocratique en Israël Palestine ». Il a d’ailleurs aidé à financer la conférence de Lausanne.
Il a également aidé à la construction de l’Unité Africaine et il était en train de préparer les Etats Unis d’Afrique afin que les ressources africaines restent en Afrique.
Je garde une profonde admiration pour le peuple libyen.
Je pense sincèrement que Kadhafi a fait son temps et qu’il doit laisser la place à d’autres membres du congrès général qui gère le pays. Vu ce qui s’est passé dernièrement, il faudrait organiser une réunion du congrès général qui doit s’ouvrir également aux insurgés ainsi qu’à tous les opposants.
Mais ce n’est pas à l’Otan, ni aux USA, ni aux Européens ni à la Ligue Arabe à décider qui doit ou ne doit pas gouverner la Libye.
Que Sarkozy qui a reçu en grande pompe Mouammar Kadhafi parce qu’il voulait lui fourguer des rafales et une centrale nucléaire, mais surtout pour l’entraîner dans l’Union Pour La Méditerranée afin d’y faire accepter Israël dont les pays arabes ne voulaient pas, se permette tout à coup de prôner une intervention militaire, me semble aberrant et surtout stupide à brève échéance.
Tous ceux qui appellent à cette couverture aérienne qu’ils ont surnommée faussement humanitaire, ou demandent l’aide des Américains pour déloger le guide, devraient se souvenir de ce qu’a donné l’aide américaine à l’Irak. Le peuple irakien a régressé de dix ans et est encore toujours en train de payer l’invasion de son pays alors que d’autres lui pompent son pétrole. N’oublions pas que la Libye attire également tous les rapaces de l’or noir.
Nous n’avons pas à nous ingérer dans la politique Libyenne, et il est probable qu'une intervention armée ne ramènerait nullement le calme. En effet, la particularité de ce pays est son fonctionnement tribal. Trois régions se disputent le contrôle du pays: la Tripolitaine, avec 2 millions d'habitants sur plus de 6 millions; la Cyrénaïque, actuellement insurgée, forte de 2 millions d'habitants aussi; elle a des tendances islamistes et sécessionnistes. Enfin le sud, dépeuplé, désertique, la province de Fezzan, qui prête actuellement main forte à la Cyrénaïque.
Si l'on s'en tient à l'intérêt immédiat de l'Occident, le maintien du régime de Kadhafi est de loin une garantie de stabilité des prix du pétrole et du contrôle de l'émigration. Toute intervention favoriserait au contraire la balkanisation de tout le pays, l'instabilité et la radicalisation. Au départ, les USA espéraient prendre rapidement le contrôle de tout le pays, à la faveur d'un renversement du pouvoir à l'égyptienne. Il semble bien que dans le cadre de ce plan ils aient commencé par armer les opposants, tandis que les mercenaires de Blackwater s'infiltraient dans la place pour organiser des massacres que les media pourraient présenter comme des initiatives sanguinaires de Khadafi.
Mais c'est d'ores et déjà une opération ratée, où les USA ont montré le degré de désinformation qui est celui de la classe dirigeante. Et le risque pour eux est réel que se constitue un front de la jeunesse contre Israël et les USA. Est-ce que les USA pourront reprendre le contrôle de la Libye pour en faire une base de reconquête tant des pays arabes que de l'Afrique noire? Pour l'instant, l''insurrection est en phase de repli, et se plaint amèrement de ne pas avoir reçu les soutiens promis à temps pour résister. Mouammar Kadhafi n’a pas plié et continue à résister, malgré toutes les pressions et les menaces.
Actuellement, seul le machiavélisme israélien a intérêt à une franche intervention US par le biais de l'OTAN, dans l'idée que toute situation chaotique lui convient mieux qu'un régime instruit par l'expérience, et qui pourrait relancer la constitution d'un grand front régional uni contre Israël.
Il faut souligner l'habileté actuelle du guide de la Jamrhiya, qui insiste sur les traités conclus avec chacun des pays de l'Otan et avec Israël, en brandissant le chantage à l'invasion migratoire, à l'islamisation, et à la hausse des prix du pétrole. Il multiplie les interventions télévisées afin de rappeler à l'Occident la diversité des menaces qu'il peut faire peser sur leurs intérêts, et il est bon de rappeler aussi qu'il a tout d'abord pris le pouvoir sous la bannière des idéaux de Nasser, et avait dans une première étape nationalisé le pétrole (la Libye est le pays qui tire le plus de bénéfices per capita de ses ressources pétrolières).
Espérons que, s'il parvient à reprendre la situation en main, il sache favoriser l'émergence d'un successeur capable de reconquérir l'opinion de la jeunesse avec de réelles ouvertures démocratiques, en rompant certaines alliances funestes, et en renouant avec l'anti-impérialisme, pan arabe et panafricain.
Paris, 10 mars 2011
Kadhafi était un tyran sanguinaire. Je le croyais puis j’ai changé d’avis.
OPEN LETTER TO KEN O’KEEFE by Joe Fallisi
March 19, 2011Dear 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
A Warning for U.S. Warmongers: Keep Hands Off Libya
By Willis A. Carto
If the mainstream media is to be believed, Muammar Qadaffi is an unstable personality. We are glad that he is the president of Libya, not the United States. That being said, we should keep our greedy hands off that country. We have no business there. No—we don’t need Libyan oil. We have more than enough in the ground right here and in Alaska to run American industry, automobiles, diesel locomotives and trucks, for heating etc. for the next century.
Editor Emeritus Jim Tucker, on page one of this edition of AFP, reports that we are currently engaged in “undeclared military actions 365 days a year across the globe, including various clandestine operations in Pakistan and elsewhere.” So why not Libya, too?
Well, the reason is simple. It is time to stop. It is time to halt internationalist, undeclared, pointless, expensive, no-win aggression and time for sanity in foreign affairs to begin anew.
It is time for Americans to mind America’s own business that we know a little about, not the business of other countries, groups and tribes that we only think we understand.
If you think that this sounds like the policy recommended by George Washington and all of the other Founders and followed by all of the presidents up to Woodrow Wilson who maneuvered us into a European war which then became World War I, you are right.
As Dwight Eisenhower sagely observed, America must reject the military-industrial complex. The tragedy of “our” foreign policy is driven not by what our leaders believe is best for the people but by the drive for profits by the munitions makers, bankers and other riff-raff who profit from death, debt, destruction and defeat.
Stay out of Libya. Reject the importunings of traitors and foreign interests like Israel. Let’s do what is right for America for a change. #
C’est à Israël qu’il faut s’en prendre, pas à la Libye !
Stephen Lendman
Mercredi 30 Mars 2011
Gaza sous les bombardements israéliens. Curieusement, quand il est question des Palestiniens, les puissances occidentales ne parlent jamais de "protéger les civils" ou de "no-fly zone"...
Cela fait des dizaines d’années qu’il dirige en despote, punissant ses ennemis, récompensant ses amis. Ses jours sont sans doute comptés désormais. Washington ne renoncera pas à le faire partir, peu importe le nombre de morts que cela prendra pour atteindre cet objectif.
Il y a cependant un danger bien plus grand qui menace la région, à savoir la machine de guerre israélienne basée à Jérusalem. En dehors du fait que ce pays occupe illégalement la Palestine, qu’il brutalise les Palestiniens, qu’il persécute les Arabes israéliens, qu’il menace et attaque ses voisins, il est depuis toujours déterminé à diviser la région pour la contrôler.
De fait, son projet cauchemardesque consiste à découper les nations arabes en de petits états -les balkaniser en somme, suivant des critères ethniques et sectaires pour en faire des satellites d’Israël, des satrapes faciles à contrôler. L’idée vient du système des Millets de l’empire ottoman par lequel les autorités locales gouvernaient séparément chaque communauté religieuse avec son identité ethnique donnée.
La conquête du Golan par Israël en 1967 suivait ce plan. Les invasions du Liban de 1978 et 1982 faisaient aussi partie du projet d’affaiblir, de fragmenter, de diviser et de reconfigurer les états de la région sous le contrôle israélien en les attaquant de manière préventive.
Hélas, au lieu de sanctionner Israël, d’exiger qu’il mette fin au siège de Gaza et d’imposer une zone d’exclusion aérienne pour empêcher ses attaques aériennes régulières et ses attaques au sol, Washington, le trésorier et partenaire d’Israël, le fournit généreusement en armes et en fonds, se mettant de ce fait au service de sa machine de guerre sans foi ni loi.
Ce qui fait qu’Israël est devenu une sorte de Sparte moderne ; Le pays est capable de mobiliser plus de 600 000 combattants en 72 heures, il est équipé d’armes nucléaires et autres armes de pointe et il bénéficie du soutien inconditionnel de l’occident quoiqu’il fasse. De plus, pour atteindre son but, il n’hésite pas à endoctriner les jeunes israéliens pour en faire des guerriers dans un processus qui prépare les mineurs à leur future service militaire obligatoire.
On leur enseigne que la force et la guerre sont les meilleurs moyens de résoudre les problèmes politiques. Cela leur est martelé tout au long de leur éducation, y compris par des soldats en uniforme dans les salles de classe. De plus, les enseignants, et surtout les directeurs, sont des officiers de l’armée à la retraite et sur les murs de l’école, les noms et des photos des héros tombés au combat se mêlent aux noms des diplômés. Qui plus est, des sorties scolaires sont organisées sur les anciens champs de bataille ou dans les mémoriaux, à tous les âges.
Les programmes et les livres de classe reflètent aussi le militarisme ambiant ; du jardin d’enfants jusqu’au lycée, dans toutes les écoles publiques, les enfants suivent des cours obligatoires appelés "préparation à l’IDF" (Forces de défense israéliennes). Ces cours comprennent de l’entraînement physique ainsi que la glorification des héros et des conquêtes militaires, en même temps qu’ils vilipendent les Arabes et incitent les enfants à les haïr.
Ils apprennent tout cela dès leur plus jeune âge et cette empreinte indélébile les prépare à devenir des conscrits, à se battre puis à passer tout le reste de leur vie à soutenir l’armée. De fait, en élevant des enfants dans une atmosphère de violence et d’hostilité, on les conditionne à faire la guerre contre tous ceux qu’on leur désigne comme des ennemis que cela soit vrai ou non.
En conséquence les Palestiniens souffrent horriblement sous le joug d’une armée d’occupation impitoyable qui se livre à des violence journalières telles que assassinats ciblés, arrestations de masse, vol des terres, transferts de population, torture, qui paupérise et prive de travail les populations et qui viole leurs droits élémentaires et leurs droits humains, surtout à Gaza assiégé où le peuple est victime d’un génocide au ralenti à force de manquer de tout.
De plus Israël ne cesse de faire des incursions à Gaza et d’attaquer les Palestiniens en toute impunité. Les USA n’expriment pas la moindre critique à son égard et encore moins de condamnation ; Ils n’appellent pas non à des sanctions, à l’isolement, ni à une zone d’exclusion aérienne pour empêcher de nouveaux assauts aériens ou terrestres contre Gaza.
Et donc, rien que pendant la période du 10 au 16 mars, les frappes aériennes israéliennes ont tué deux travailleurs palestiniens, en ont blessé deux autres et ont détruit trois bâtiments civils. D’autres Gazaouis, des fermiers, des pécheurs et des civils ont aussi été pris pour cible.
De plus les Israéliens ont attaqué les manifestations pacifiques de Cisjordanie aux gaz lacrymogènes et on tiré des balles en caoutchouc. Ils ont arrêté deux militants internationaux des droits de l’homme et ont fait 47 incursions différentes dans des communautés palestiniennes qui se sont soldées par 66 arrestations dont six enfants.
Le 17 mars, avec l’accord du gouvernement, les colons se sont déchaînés contre les Palestiniens au cours d’une "journée de la colère" en représailles du meurtre récent d’une famille de colons, bien qu’il n’y ait aucune preuve que des Palestiniens aient commis ce crime.
Les colons ont attaqué des Palestiniens à coup de pierres et de cocktails Molotov et ont lancé une bombe incendiaire sur une maison. De plus, quatre voitures et un tracteur ont été brûlés et sept autres véhicules endommagés. Ils ont blessé d’autres personnes et des colons armés et des soldats israéliens ont arraché des centaines d’oliviers près de Bethléem.
Le 14 mars un Palestinien a été tué d’un coup de couteau, un magasin a été incendié et des voitures ont été détruites à coup de pierres près de Hébron. Le 20 mars une petite fille de onze ans a été écrasée en allant à l’école.
De plus Israël a annoncé la construction de 500 nouvelles maisons dans les colonies et intensifié la destruction de maison palestiniennes suite aux meurtres, en dépit du fait que rien ne prouve qu’ils aient été perpétrés par des Palestiniens.
Le 21 mars, lors d’attaques aériennes les Israéliens ont bombardé des sites civils de Gaza, blessant 15 civils y compris deux femmes et deux enfants. Des douzaines de maisons, sept magasins, plusieurs voitures, un bâtiment municipal, un atelier métallique et une station de recyclage du plastique ont été partiellement ou totalement endommagés.
Le 22 mars, d’autres attaques ont fait quatre morts dont deux enfants, et onze blessés dont 8 enfants (trois d’entre eux gravement). Des membres des brigades el Quds ont aussi été pris pour cible près de la mosquée de Abdul Aziz al-Rantisi à l’est de Gaza, et quatre personnes ont été tuées.
Le 24 mars, des avions de guerre israéliens ont mené deux autres attaques ; ils ont pris pour cible une centre d’entraînement de la ville de Rafah et l’ont fortement endommagé, sans faire de morts ni de blessés. De plus, selon l’agence de presse SAFA, des attaques aériennes ont touché un tunnel à l’est de la porte Salah Al-Din de Rafah. Quatre missiles ont été tirés sur un site militaire du Hamas au sud de la ville de Gaza et des attaques israéliennes ont détruits les câbles d’alimentation électrique dans plusieurs quartiers.
La radio israélienne a affirmé que Gaza avait envoyé des roquettes et des bombes à mortier et qu’ils n’avaient fait que répliquer. Le Jihad Islamique a revendiqué ces attaques en disant qu’il avait agi "en représailles contre les attaques incessantes d’Israël". Le Hamas a déclaré qu’il s’engageait à respecter le cessez le feu à condition qu’Israël cesse d’attaquer Gaza. Sinon il considérait qu’il avait le droit de se défendre.
Selon le International Middle East Media Center, (centre médiatique du Moyen Orient) :
"Les politiciens israéliens seraient en train de réfléchir à une escalade supplémentaire qui pourrait être une second "Cast lead". Etant donné la guerre de Washington en Libye qui s’ajoute à celles d’Irak, d’Afghanistan et du Pakistan et les nombreux soulèvements arabes, une offensive israélienne semble peu probable. Mais elle se produira peut-être plus tard, à un moment plus opportun.
Doit-on s’attendre à d’autres guerres ?
Le plus souvent Israël profite de provocations réelles ou fabriquées pour donner libre cours à sa violence ou déclarer la guerre. En fait, l’attentat du 23 mars à Jérusalem aurait pu être utilisé de la sorte si une attaque d’envergure avait été à l’ordre du jour. L’incident à l’arrêt de bus bondé a tué une personne et en a blessé une trentaine, dont trois gravement. Selon Haaretz il s’agissait probablement d’un engin explosif "caché dans un sac près du téléphone". Le 24 mars, Ma’an News a dit que la police israélienne resterait "en état d’alerte maximum" suite à cette attaque. Un officiel anonyme a déclaré que "les autorités savaient qui était derrière" l’attentat : les suspects habituels sans aucun doute.
Cela fait bientôt 44 ans que des incidents similaires et d’intenses conflits sporadiques jalonnent la vie quotidienne de la Palestine occupée. Cela témoigne de la brutalité et de la violence israéliennes, mais au lieu de les condamner et d’exiger qu’il y soit mis fin, Washington les récompense généreusement tout en attaquant lui-même à des fins impérialistes tous ceux qui lui en donnent l’occasion comme Kadhafi.
Ce sont toujours les civils innocents qui souffrent le plus, surtout les femmes et les enfants qui sont les principales victimes de la guerre et de la violence ; ce sont des victimes ignorées, qui n’ont pas de valeur et qui n’intéressent personne et que les medias dominants, qui soutiennent les massacres et les destructions impérialistes, ne mentionnent jamais.
Tout ceci fait que des milliers de Palestiniens sont prêts à lancer une troisième Intifada, galvanisés par les autres soulèvement pour un changement démocratique dans la région. Au début de mars, une nouvelle page de Facebook a été créée pour la promouvoir avec comme slogan :" La Palestine sera libérée et nous la libérerons."
En quelques jours, la page a enregistré 140 000 "j’aime" avec un million comme but, et le rythme se maintient et en en attend encore beaucoup d’autres - c’est une vague de fond qui aura raison de l’occupation et qui apportera à ce peuple opprimé la fin de l’occupation et le changement démocratique qui lui ont si longtemps été refusés. Le changement viendra parce qu’il est le fruit de l’énergie populaire, mais ce ne sera pas facile ni rapide et les Palestiniens auront à supporter encore beaucoup de souffrances.
Un dernier commentaire
Depuis le 22 mars, les Palestiniens ont deux raisons supplémentaires d’agir car la Knesset a passé deux lois discriminatoires. La première s’appelle la loi sur l’acceptation dans les communautés et elle autorise les petites communautés juives de Galilée et du Negev à avoir des comités d’admission racistes qui excluent les résidents arabes ou les personnes indésirables pour d’autres raisons des communautés qui vivent sur des terres confisquées aux Palestiniens.
L’association pour les droits civils en Israël (ACRI) a dit que le vote de cette loi "inscrirait la discrimination et l’apartheid dans la loi israélienne" grâce à des critères vagues comme la nécessité de "correspondre au style de vie de la communauté" ou de "correspondre au tissu social" ce qui signifie en clair qu’on n’acceptera pas les Arabes ; et peut-être pas non plus les pères ou mères célibataires, les handicapés, les couples du même sexe, les juifs d’origine orientale bref toute personne que l’on considérera comme indésirable.
On appelle l’autre loi, la Loi de la Nakba bien que son nom officiel soit la Loi des Principes Budgétaires (amendement 39) : la réduction des subventions budgétaires aux activités contraires aux valeurs de l’état, qui permet au ministre des finances d’infliger des amendes aux municipalités et aux institutions publiques passibles de :
soutenir publiquement des organisations commémorant la Nakba, le jour de l’indépendance d’Israël ;
s’opposer au terme "état juif démocratique" ou
manquer de respect aux symboles de l’état.
soutenir publiquement des organisations commémorant la Nakba, le jour de l’indépendance d’Israël ; s’opposer au terme "état juif démocratique" ou manquer de respect aux symboles de l’état.
Selon ACRI "cette loi limite dangereusement la liberté d’expression, la liberté de l’expression artistique et la liberté de manifester qui sont des droits élémentaires essentiels à l’existence même de la démocratie."
Il est clair qu’Israël n’est pas une démocratie et n’en a jamais été une, puisque seuls les Juifs y ont des droits et d’ailleurs de moins en moins, sauf pour les plus privilégiés comme aux USA. La plupart des gens sont plus que jamais livrés à leurs propres ressources. Les médias des deux pays minimisent cet état de fait, quand ils en parlent.
* Stephen Lendman habite à Chicago. On peut le contacter à lendmanstephen@sbcglobal.net et sur [sjlendman.blogspot.com]. Il anime des émissions d’avant garde sur the Progressive Radio News Hour sur the Progressive Radio Network.
Dissident Voice - Pour consulter l’original : http://dissidentvoice.org/2011/03/t...
Farrakhan: Jews are pushing the US into war
By LAHAV HARKOV
03/02/2011 10:10
Nation of Islam leader Louis Farrakhan said on Tuesday that Jews and Zionists are “trying to push the US into war” and that “Zionists dominate the US government and banks.”Farrakhan, 77, made the comments at the Nation of Islam’s annual meeting near Chicago.
Farrakhan said his comments on Jews were meant “to pull the cover off Satan.”“President Obama,” Farrakhan said, “if you allow the Zionists to push you, to mount a military offensive against Gaddafi and you go in and kill him and his sons, as you did with Saddam Hussein and his sons... I’m warning you this is a Libyan problem, let the Libyans solve their problem among themselves.”
Farrakhan called Muammar Gaddafi “my brother and my friend.”
The Nation of Islam leader also accused American Zionists of attempting to push Israel into war with Iran, stating that “Zionists dominate the government of the United States of America and her banking system.”
“Some of you think that I’m just somebody who’s got something out for the Jewish people,” Farrakhan said. “You’re stupid.
Do you think I would waste my time if I did not think it was important for you to know Satan? My job is to pull the cover off of Satan so that he will never deceive you and the people of the world again.”
ADL National Director Abe Foxman said in response that, “Anti-Semitism has suffused the Nation of Islam’s message, and Farrakhan is the standard bearer and bigot in chief... Perhaps what's more disturbing is that despite his anti-Semitic rants, he has not been made a pariah in his own community. What does it take for him to stop being a pied piper of hatred?”
The New Babylon - Those Who Reign Supreme
LIEberman
Wiesel, Lieberman et Dershowitz se joignent à Hagee pour présenter une pétition visant l'inculpation d'Ahmadinejad pour 'incitation au génocide'
Le croisé anti-terrorisme Lieberman lié à un groupe pro-terrorisme
Le sioniste juif intégriste Joe Lieberman s'exprime aux nom des États-Unis d'Amérique (rien de moins): "Les USA sont prêts à attaquer l'Iran"
Joe Liberman veut retirer la citoyenneté aux présumés terroristes
‘Israel’s Senator’ a Neo-Con at Heart
Victor Thorn
On Jan. 19, one who can accurately be described as “Israel’s senator from Connecticut,” Joseph Lieberman, announced that he will not seek re-election in 2012. As the first Orthodox Jew to serve in Congress, Lieberman lost his Democratic primary in 2006, only to miraculously achieve victory in the general election as an independent candidate.
Strangely, in his 2000 senatorial race, Lieberman’s GOP challenger received 448,077 votes. Likewise, in 2006, his Democratic foe re-ceived exactly the same number of votes: 448,077.
The incredible odds against such a numerical match don’t seem so bizarre when voters real-ize that Lieberman’s campaign hired Prenzina Holloway, who was specifically barred from engaging in absentee ballot activities. Not surprisingly, one of Holloway’s duties for Lieberman included voter outreach and the distribution of absentee ballot applications. This move elicited allegations of vote fraud.
Close scrutiny of Lieberman’s record over the past two decades reveals a man firmly entrenched in deceit, corruption and strict opposition to personal freedoms for the American people.
In addition to his support for increased surveillance spy cameras, Lieberman also proposed a Senate bill (S. 3480) that provides a massive power grab to the president in times of “national cyber emergencies.” One aspect of his legislation is an “Internet kill switch” that conceivably grants the White House the power to shut down the entire Internet.
Lieberman commented on this draconian measure, “If China can disconnect the Internet, we need to have that here, too.”
On the “Kill Switch”:
“If China can disconnect
the Internet, we need to
have that here, too.”
—Joe Lieberman
The senator’s dictatorial nature also led him to co-sign the SHIELD Act last year, a move allowing online whistleblower organizations like WikiLeaks to be prosecuted under the Espionage Act.
Similarly, along with Israel’s second-most favorite American senator, John McCain (R-Ariz.), Lieberman favors detaining individuals without release even if the Department of Justice knowingly can never obtain guilty verdicts in a court of law.
The McCain-Lieberman police state mentality also extends to authorizing CIA operatives to murder U.S. citizens on foreign soil, in addition to weakening whistleblower protections.
Of course, it’s no secret that Lieberman is an ardent Israel-first neo-conservative warmonger who supported McCain’s 2008 presidential bid. Over the years Lieberman has called for military strikes against Iran and Yemen, causing Sen. John Kerry (D-Mass.) to refer to him as “the new Cheney.”
On Jan. 20, Lieberman still insisted that the U.S. invasion of Iraq was justified and that there were weapons of mass destruction found in the Middle East country. He stated on MSNBC, “I believe that the evidence is very clear that Saddam Hussein was developing weapons of mass destruction.”
Although George W. Bush has admitted that Iraq had no such weapons, Lieberman forwarded another grotesque lie: that Hussein was financing the same “terrorists” who attacked America on 9-11. Again, this propaganda was dispelled by a Senate Intelligence Committee report finding no connection between al Qaeda and Hussein.
9-11 PROBE
Lieberman went on the record during a Dec. 18, 2010 town hall meeting and claimed that he would not condone a new 9-11 investigation. He based this assessment on the inexplicable collapse of the World Trade Center 7 building, the third Manhattan building to crumble on Sept. 11, 2001. Lieberman claimed, “I have no evidence that this really occurred.”
With mind-boggling audacity, Lieberman added, “The 9-11 Commission was totally bipartisan. They dug up everything. They were very critical of people in our government and our intelligence services.”
The extent of Lieberman’s deception and treachery knows no bounds.
He and his wife Hadassah, a high-powered lobbyist, collected over $1 million in campaign contributions from healthcare companies during his congressional tenure. As such, he became a strong advocate of Obama’s healthcare bill, while also supporting disastrous cap-and-trade legislation.
“Israel’s senator” has also forged strong ties with Anti-Defamation League Director Abraham Foxman and Christian Zionist Pastor John Hagee.
At a July 2007 “Christians United for Israel” rally in Washington, D.C., Lieberman said of the Texas-based Hagee, “He is a man of God, and, like Moses, he is the leader of a mighty multitude.”
As a further example of his clout, Lieberman joined Zionist mouthpiece William Kristol in “auditioning” Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin prior to her becoming McCain’s vice presidential candidate in 2008.
Earlier, Lieberman served as Al Gore’s running mate in 2000, appropriately bowing under to the Florida votescam debacle that allowed Israel’s neo-conservative cabal under George W. Bush to seize control of the White House and unleash its 9-11 false-flag strikes against New York and Washington.
Allen Roland may have most effectively summarized Lieberman’s reign of terror in a Dec. 17, 2009 article entitled “Why Lieberman Rules the Senate.”
Roland wrote: “Joe Lieberman is the [the American Israel Public Affairs Committee] AIPAC senate-minder like [Rahm] Emanuel is Obama’s AIPAC-minder . . . Joe Lieberman speaks for AIPAC and, in turn, is protected by AIPAC.”#
VIDEO - McCain bows to j_wish money
VIDEO - John McCain Organized Crime Link
John McCain: représentant par excellence des intérêts d'Israël
Pro-Israel Neo-Con Hand-Picked McCain VP
John McCain's Rothschild Connection
La famille McCain et le "cover up" de l'attaque israélienne contre le USS Liberty
Ralph Nader Tackles McCain on the USS Liberty Issue
McCain's Mob Money Connection Suppressed by The Washington Post
Les médias cachent les liens de McCain avec le crime organisé et les Bronfman
Newsweek Magazine Covers Up McCain's Mob Ties
McCain invoque le "Plus Jamais!" pour mettre en garde contre la "menace iranienne"
McCain et les Rothschild
McCain's Rothschild Fundraiser in London
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.
The End
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.
The End
Michael Collins Piper, YE SHALL KNOW THE TRUTH
(...)
