Les "patriotes" américains et dans plusieurs autres pays sont tout excités d'entendre la "nouvelle" selon quoi le certificat de naissance d'Obama serait un faux. Ainsi le pseudo mouvement des "Birthers" a le vent en poupe depuis les premiers jours de l'élection d'Obama. D'autres encore plus ignorants le prennent pour un musulman!
Voyez ce qu'on peut lire sur les sites de ces idiots utiles "conspirationnistes" (du genre Alex Jones et co.):
Orly (Averbuch) Taitz, juive sioniste israélienne et reine du mouvement,
Phil Berg, pseudo "truther" juif,
Jerome Corsi, pseudo "truther" sioniste anti-Iran, anti-Islam et anti-catholique
Joseph Farah (WorldNet Daily) promu par les médias juifs (et par le site netanyahu.org)
Alan Keyes, conservateur Noir proche ami des Néocons juifs Kristol et Podhoretz.
Ce pitoyable mouvement patriote ignore que le mouvement des Birthers tire son origine du segment le plus extrémiste des colons juifs israéliens... (Imaginez un peu tout ce que le Mossad doit avoir accumulé comme dossier sur lui!)
MCP discusses the lunacy of the "birther movement" and how it is being used by Jewish interests to put pressure on Obama into furthering Zionist interests around the globe.
Netanyahu may have other tricks up his sleeve for Obama in the future
Quote:
.....The Israeli government has allegedly used its influence in American politics to strengthen the rumors about US President Barack Obama's birthplace.
On Monday, well-known investigative journalist Wayne Madsen said Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu's entrenched alliance with the America-Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC), various neoconservative groups and fundamentalist Christian organizations had made it "very easy for him to bring this whole canard back" about allegations that Obama has been born in Kenya rather than the United States.
"And it looks like he has done that as a way to put political pressure and try to tip Obama off his high favorability ratings at the present time," he added.
The Constitution bars people born outside the US from running for president. Obama's birthplace has been verified as Hawaii by the island state's Health Department and the president has presented his birth certificate online.
The claimants to the contrary, called 'birthers', are lead by California attorney Orly Taitz who has filed in the federal court Kenyan papers, which certify that Obama is Kenyan-born.
The Washington-based journalist said that "just after this fake birth certificate came out, she [Taitz] pops up in Tel Aviv two days later."
"She is originally from Moldova, very closely tied to Likud, Netanyahu and also Foreign Minister (Avigdor Lieberman) who is also a native of Moldova," he told Russia Today.
Asked about the Israeli motive for the move, the Washington-based journalist said "The Netanyahu government is very upset with Obama over the Obama administration's insistence that there be a freeze on settlements including in East Jerusalem [al-Quds]. So that couples with the reticence of the Obama administration to take any military action against Iran, which Netanyahu's government favors, has brought this old story back to life.
Maintenant, c'est au tour du flamboyant millionnaire américain Donald Trump de se porter à l'avant-scène du pseudo mouvement des "Birthers". Et les pathétiques "patriotes" sont en train de tomber en amour avec ce menteur et escroc, ils le prennent pour un des leurs!
The Piper Report (podcast) April 26, 2011
Trump’s sudden interest in Barack Obama’s
birthplace–simple curiosity or a blackmail
operation on the part of Israel? MCP pursues
this and other questions in tonight’s program. Download Here
Trump est en fait une façade des intérêts sionistes, du crime organisé juif, du Mossad, des Bronfman, des Rothschild.. Voir: Les intérêts Rothschild derrière Donald Trump (tiré de The New Jerusalem, Michael Collins Piper). Voir aussi: Trump wants to be president---But will mob ties derail the flamboyant frontman? Michael Collins Piper
Pourquoi le certificat de naissance d'Obama n'a aucune importance:
To observers like Bangkok-based columnist Tony Cartalucci, President Obama’s birth certificate controversy is nothing but a red herring. The argument that this issue makes-or-breaks his legitimacy as president pales in comparison to the realization that the entire office of the president has been usurped for at least 2 decades. Like it or not, according to this author, the real government consists of unelected bankers and corporate special interests.
29 April 2011
Of course, a candidate must meet legal requirements before running for public office. This is a universally agreed upon concept which has been enumerated in laws in every nation, since the beginning of human civilization. However, for those who deeply examine the United States and how it has drifted from a constitutional republic to the corporate-financier oligarchy it is today, they might realize the futility of arguing over "President" Obama’s qualifications for an office that has long been ceremonial, if not entirely theatrical.
The corporate-financier agenda transcends presidencies. From Reagan to Obama, US foreign and domestic policy has moved in a continuously linear direction toward increasing corporate-financial monopolies and eroding the role and sovereignty of the US Constitution and the people who are supposed to execute it. In 1991, "Neo-Conservative" war monger Paul Wolfowitz stated that the Middle East would be turned upside down and reordered in America’s favor - ironically, this operation which has been piecemeal planned and executed year-by-year since then, is finally unfolding in its entirety under the supposedly "liberal" Obama administration. [1]
Likewise, the seemingly "liberal" free-trade agreements pushed by Clinton, were expanded into the beginnings of the supranational Security and Prosperity Partnership of North America under the supposedly "conservative" Bush administration. Of course, the blueprints for the SPP [2] or the geopolitical reordering of the Middle East weren’t drawn up by presidential administrations nor committees amongst America’s elected representatives, but rather by unelected corporate-funded think-tanks [3] like the Council on Foreign Relations or the Brookings Institute. These think-tanks represent the collective interests of the largest corporations and financial institutions on earth and are the real, often obscure architects of both American and European foreign and domestic policy.
The only difference one can delineate then, is the brand of propaganda used during each supposedly ideologically differentiated political administration to sell this unipolar, unilateral, continuous agenda to the public as it creeps forward. But even upon examining each presidential administration, we are struck with names and affiliations of members who directly represent these corporate interests.
Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner (left) and Attorney General Eric Holder (center).
To illustrate how entirely ineffectual and meaningless "Obama" is as a president, let’s examine some key members of his administration and what their affiliations are. Timothy Geithner (Secretary of the Treasury): Group of 30, Council on Foreign Relations, private Federal Reserve Eric Holder (Attorney General): Covington & Burling lobbying for Merck and representing Chiquita International Brands in lawsuits brought by relatives of people killed by Colombian terrorists. Eric Shinseki (Secretary of Veteran Affairs): US Army, Council on Foreign Relations, Honeywell director (military contractor), Ducommun director (military contractor). Rahm Emanuel (former Chief of Staff): Freddie Mac William Daley (Chief of Staff): JP Morgan executive committee member Susan Rice (UN Ambassador): McKinsey and Company, Brookings Institute, Council on Foreign Relations Peter Orszag, (former Budget Director): Citi Group, Council on Foreign Relations Paul Volcker: Council on Foreign Relations, private Federal Reserve, Group of 30 Ronald Kirk (US Trade Representative): lobbyist, part of Goldman Sachs, Kohlberg, Kravis, Roberts, and Texas Pacific Group partnership to buyout Energy Future Holdings. Lawrence Summers (National Economic Council Director): World Bank, Council on Foreign Relations
Who amongst Obama’s administration can we honestly presume has the people’s, or even America’s best interests at heart? Goldman Sachs bankers? JP Morgan bankers? Corporate lobbyists? Indeed, these are the same banking, corporate, and political interests that guided the agenda under Bush, Clinton, Bush Sr., Regan and so on. While there is some debate over which US president was in fact the last "real" president who exercised an agenda it genuinely could claim ownership over, there is no doubt that over the last two decades the same corporate interests have been entirely steering America’s people and their destiny with but the veneer of "democracy."
Had John McCain won the elections in 2008, you could rest assured he would have taken US policy in the exact same direction Obama is going today. In fact, McCain is one of the key players who has helped fund and organize the current unrest sweeping the Middle East, along with a myriad of other "Republicans" and "Neo-Conservatives." The "Arab Spring" itself was planned and being staged before Obama even took office.
Ideologically, President Obama’s qualifications are important and many are right to question them. Realistically, they are a red herring, as is his entire presidency. He is in charge of exactly nothing, most likely not even the tie he puts on in the morning and surely not the words that come out of his mouth. His entire function is to perpetuate the facade that America is still run by an elected government and not an illegitimate oligarchy of corporations and financial institutions. Arguing over his birth certificate engenders him with legitimacy in and of itself - suggesting that if he had proper qualifications he would be a "legitimate" president. But he, like his predecessor Bush, are both entirely illegitimate, as is the system they purportedly preside over.
Recognizing this grave reality, and instead concentrating on the corporate-financier interests that have hijacked American politics is essential to restoring a true constitutional republic. For it is not whose hands we think hold the power, it is in whose hands that really hold the power that shapes US policy. Definitively, US policy does not favor the people, definitively the power is not in the people’s hands. As long as we grasp to the illusion that through the futile exercise of elections we are somehow "in control," it will remain this way perpetually. The fact that our president is in charge of absolutely nothing and that his duties have long been shifted to an unelected corporate-financier oligarchy is the issue, not his dubious qualifications.
A host of international plutocrats, including Lady Lynn Forrester de Rothschild, have set in motion a “grass-roots”movement to launch a “centrist” third party to be on the ballot in the 2012 presidential election. The group calls itself Americans Elect (AE). With $20million now in their war chest, they are engaged in a well-funded effort to get ballot status for their new party all across the country.
Because the group is legally designated a non political, tax-exempt social welfare organization, it is not obligated to disclose the names of its obviously well-heeled contributors—said to be only 300 to 400 in number—who are bankrolling its operations.
As of mid-July, the group had already gained ballot access in Arizona, Alaska, Kansas and Nevada. Efforts are now under way in Michigan, Hawaii, Missouri, Florida and California, while many more states are also being targeted.
AMERICAN FREE PRESS has been alone among the media in reporting on the intrigues of those conspiring to foist an ostensibly “independent” political party on the American people, although some dissident voices on the Internet have started to pick up on the story.
The chief operating director ofAmericans Elect (AE), Elliot Ackerman, claims his group doesn’t take money from special interests, but his protests are disingenuous when one considers the names and high-level financial connections of the people—including his own father—who are involved in AE.
ELLIOT ACKERMAN
Working with elite to form controlled third party.
Ackerman’s father, PeterAckerman, is a veteran Wall Street operator who collaborated with infamous junk bond king and Israeli lobby stalwart Michael Milken during the 1980s. The senior Ackerman is also among 13 members of the New York-based Council on Foreign Relations (CFR) who serve on the board of advisors for AE. The fact that the aforementioned Lady Rothschild is also among themis no coincidence. The CFR is the American wing of the Rothschild-controlled Royal Institute of International Affairs, the foreign policy wing of the Rothschild empire.
Another CFR member active in AE is Douglas Schoen, a veteran Democratic Party political consultant who, despite his partisan background—like Lady Rothschild—has been adamant about the need for President Barack Obama to be ousted from office in 2012. A lifelong Democrat, de Rothschild backed Republican John McCain over Obama in 2008. Since that time she and Schoen have been writing and speaking publicly about their intentions of seeing Obama displaced from the White House. Likewise, both have been touting the need for a “centrist” challenge to both Obama and any potential “extremist” nominated by the Republican Party.
As AFP has repeatedly pointed out, The Washington Post—which is owned inmajor part by financial interests historically connected to the Rothschild financial dynasty—has been promoting the concept of a “centrist” third party movement as has The New York Times. On Sept. 1, the Post even went so far as to publish a commentary pointedly entitled “Billionaires to the Rescue” that hailed the efforts o AE.
The author of this piece, Matt Miller, suggested that wealthy patrons should continue to bankroll AE (as they have already done) and urged that some independent minded American billionaire put himself and his fortune forward to lead the new third party.
Miller wrote: “If you’re rich, serious about changing the world and think that our two-party tyranny has become part of the problem, there’s no better time to invest in disruptive political innovation. The country you save may be your own.”
The fact that such big money forces are promoting this endeavor should set off alarm bells among serious grass-roots folks who believe in the need to break the back of our controlled two-party system.
In the year ahead, the mass media will begin to unveil this “new alternative,” but truly independent-minded voters need to know the facts about this movement and how it’s being orchestrated behind the scenes. Why more independent newspapers, magazines and Internet voices are not blowing the whistle—as AFP has done—on this conspiracy remains a mystery, but you can count on AFP to continue to bring you updates as they develop.
Carl Gershman, longtime president of the National Endowment for Democracy, worked in the research department of the Anti-Defamation League of B’nai B’rith during the second half of 1968. “Research,” as the 1993 San Francisco case revealed, can be a convenient euphemism for the ADL’s spying on Israel’s perceived enemies. Speaking at the ADL’s 2004 Rome conference on “Anti-Semitism – A Threat to Democracy,” Gershman revealed a pro-Israeli motivation behind his promotion of “democratic reform” in the Middle East. “Whatever their differences,” said NED’s president, “the Baathists and Islamists share a visceral hatred of liberal values that finds its most potent expression in the vilification of Israel and the Jewish people.”
Pro-democracy activists in the Middle East who have been “quietly nurtured” by NED would be well advised to do a little more research themselves on who is supporting their uprisings, and why. And those who support them in the hope that they might pose a threat to Israeli hegemony should ask themselves why ardent Zionists like Carl Gershman have worked long and hard to promote “democracy” in the region.
Two years ago at the National Endowment for Democracy (NED) in Washington, DC., Joshua Muravchic spoke about his book, “The Next Founders: Voices of Democracy in the Middle East.” In “The Next Founders,” he profiles seven people from Saudi Arabia, Iraq, Iran, Egypt, Palestine, Kuwait, and Syria. It’s especially noteworthy that the Jewish Institute for National Security Affairs (JINSA) advisor was not promoting democratic voices only in regimes that would be considered unfriendly to Israel. There to discuss Muravchik’s book was Tamara Wittes, another longtime pro-Israel advocate of democratic reform in the Middle East and author of Freedom’s Unsteady March: America’s Role in Building Arab Democracy. The then director of the Saban Center’s Middle East Democracy and Development (MEDD) Project is currently Deputy Assistant Secretary for Near Eastern Affairs (NEA), where she coordinates democracy and human rights policy for the NEA Bureau and supervises the State Department’s Middle East Partnership Initiative (MEPI). According to an April 18 Washington Post report, MEPI has funneled up to $6 million to Syrian opposition groups since 2006. Wittes commented: “There are a lot of organizations in Syria and other countries that are seeking changes from their government. That’s an agenda that we believe in and we’re going to support.” Presumably, those “other countries” included Egypt. After all, as far back as 2005, while she was still working for Haim Saban’s Israel-protecting think tank, Wittes had written a critical piece on Hosni Mubarak entitled “Elections or no, he’s still Pharaoh,” in which she predicted that Egyptians would soon “start thinking, along with other Arabs, about hitting the streets.”
Now remember, all you out there who said that the revolutions in the Middle East were going to ‘bring freedom’ for the people there and who ridiculed those (such as yours truly) who said that in the end Israel would utilize these uprisings for her own political goals–one of the individuals helping to coordinate all the uprisings, one David Keys–worked for Natan Sharansky, one of Israel’s most bigotted, racist, warmongers who dreams of an Israeli empire stretching from the Nile to the Euphrates and who couldn’t care less about “Arab democracy”.
THE JUDAS GOATS THE ENEMY WITHIN
Michael Collins Piper
The “Israelization” of America Judas Goat Number One: George W. Bush— Shill for Zionist Theoretician Natan Sharansky: Planning for Global War in the Name of “Democracy”
President George W. Bush may well rank—by virtue of his high office—as perhaps America’s most insidious and most dangerous Judas Goat. His role in guiding America into the war in Iraq—not to mention his lead part in covering up the truth about the forces behind the 9-11 attack on America—has cast him as a veritable Enemy Within-in-Chief, so to speak. Now he urges America to fight another war against Iran.
However, the truth is that Bush’s messianic call for a worldwide “democratic revolution” (enunciated in his second inaugural address and sounding much like the rhetoric of the global Trotskyite Bolshevik movement) was not really of his own making. His words were written by others far more intelligent than Young Bush. And the origins of Bush’s newfound philosophy are very telling indeed. Perhaps what is most frightening is that the rhetoric of the American president—prodded by his behind-the-scenes “advisors”—points toward more and more military action around the globe in the years to come.
Although a documentary, Bush’s Brain, suggested that Karl Rove, purportedly the president’s chief political tactician, is the mastermind who tells the president what to think, it is now clear—based on solid evidence—that Soviet-born Israeli cabinet minister Anatoly “Natan” Sharansky is the one who actually has bragging rights to that title. Despite the fact that he gained worldwide attention in the 1970s as a Soviet dissident, make no mistake in thinking that Sharansky was ever any kind of Western-style free-market conservative or anti-communist.
Instead, Sharansky was a traditional old-line communist who—like many others in the Soviet Union—simply ran afoul of the ruling regime.
But thanks to an adoring international media, Sharansky capitalized on his imprisonment by the Soviets—who accused him of being a CIA spy—and emerged as a much-touted “human rights activist.”
Later, after his release from prison, Sharansky emigrated to Israel and soon established himself as one of Israel’s most outspoken extremist leaders who damned even Israel’s heavy-handed Prime Minister Ariel Sharon—known as “the Israeli Caesar”—as being “too soft” on the Palestinian Christians and Muslims.
The role of Sharansky in guiding Bush’s thinking is no “conspiracy theory.” Instead, disclosures from the White House itself—published, although not prominently, in the mainstream media—demonstrated that not only did Sharansky personally consult with the president in drafting the now-controversial inaugural address, but also that at least two of Sharansky’s key American publicists were among those brought in to compose Bush’s revolutionary proclamation.
Bush himself told The Washington Times in an interview published on January 12, 2005—even prior to his inauguration: “If you want a glimpse of how I think about foreign policy, read Natan Sharansky’s book, The Case for Democracy. It’s a great book.”
Buried in the very last paragraph of a very lengthy article published on January 22, 2005 The New York Times reported that “The president was given [Sharansky’s] book and asked Mr. Sharansky to meet with him
in the Oval Office . . .Mr. Bush also gave the book to several aides, urging them to read it as well. Mr. Sharansky visited the White House last November.”The Times did not say who gave the book to the president in the first place, but to find out who actually pressed the book upon the president might be very telling indeed.
Affirming the Times’ disclosure, The Washington Post likewise revealed on January 22, 2005 (although, again, in the closing paragraphs of an extended analysis) that an administration official said that planning for Bush’s address began immediately after the November election and that Bush himself had invited Sharansky to the White House to consult with him and that, in the Post’s words,“Sharansky also helped shape the speech with his book.”
It was the Post which revealed that two well-known hard-line “neoconservative” supporters of Israel—William Kristol, publisher of billionaire Rupert Murdoch’s Weekly Standard magazine, and psychiatristturned-pundit Charles Krauthammer, a strident advocate for harsh U.S. military and economic warfare against the Arab and Muslim worlds—were also among those brought in to help draft the president’s address.
Kristol—in particular—and Krauthammer are generally acknowledged even in the mainstream media in America as being among those we’ve dubbed as “the high priests of war” who were instrumental in orchestrating the U.S.war against Iraq,was a measure high-up on Israel’s “want list” for the Bush administration.
It is no coincidence that the individual on the White House staff whom the Post said helped set up the planning conferences to direct Bush’s thinking was one Peter Wehner, director of the White House Office of Strategic Initiatives.Wehner—it happens—is a Kristol protégé, having been his deputy when Kristol was serving as chief of staff for former Reagan administration Education Secretary William Bennett himself a protégé of Kristol’s very influential father, famed “ex-Trotskyite” communist-turned-neo-conservative, Irving Kristol.
So, considering Kristol’s wide-ranging input, shaping Bush’s mindset, it is really no surprise that, as the Post put it,“Bush’s grand ambitions excited his neoconservative supporters who see his call to put the United States in the forefront of the battle to spread democracy as noble and necessary.”
Meanwhile, for his own part,William Kristol chimed in with an editorial in The Weekly Standard on January 24, 2005 declaring “it’s good news that the president is so enthusiastic about Sharansky’s work. It suggests that, despite all the criticism, and the difficulties, the president remains determined to continue to lead the nation along the basic foreign policy lines he laid down in his first term.”
The BBC News noted on January 22, 2005 that Sharansky “has in fact been moving in American conservative circles for some time.”
As far back as July 2002—just prior to the time Bush delivered a hotly-debated speech calling for “democratization” of the Arab world—neo-conservative Deputy Defense Secretary Paul Wolfowitz was in attendance at a conference addressed by Sharansky during which the Israeli leader put forth the same demand.
Shortly thereafter, when Bush gave his own speech, echoing Sharansky, the Israeli hard-liner “provided an important bit of last minute affirmation,” according to American neo-conservative Richard Perle, who—between stints in government, during which time he was suspected of espionage on behalf of Israel—peddled weapons for an Israeli arms manufacturer.
Although the news of Sharansky’s profound influence was not widely known among grassroots Americans, it was big news in Israel where The Jerusalem Post headlined a story declaring “White House takes a page out of Sharansky’s democracy playbook.” In fact, the Israeli newspaper actually went so far as to say that Bush is “doing [Sharansky’s book] promotion free of charge,” pointing out that the president hyped Sharansky’s book in an interview on CNN.
But it’s not only Bush who is relying on Sharansky. On January 20, 2005, Scotland’s independent-minded newspaper, The Scotsman, noted that “Mr. Sharansky’s influence on the way Washington now sees the world was clear this week when Condoleeza Rice quoted him during her Senate confirmation hearings,” confirming that the Israeli hard-liner is very much the brains behind Bush policy.
The fact that Sharansky happened to be in charge of “diaspora affairs” in the Israeli cabinet was significant indeed.The term “diaspora” refers to all Jews living outside the borders of Israel and the “mission statement” of Sharansky’s cabinet office says it places its “emphasis on Israel, Zionism, Jerusalem and the interdependence of Jews worldwide.
In essence, this translates into a single, general aim: securing the existence and the future of the Jewish people wherever they are.” In short, Sharansky is no less than a powerful spokesman for the worldwide Zionist movement.And now, beyond any question, his views are directing George Bush’s worldview.
Considering all of this, it is no wonder that on January 22, South Korea’s English-language media voice, Chosun Ilbo, went so far as to describe Sharansky’s philosophy as outlined in his book The Case for Democracy—now being touted by Bush—as “a blueprint for U.S. foreign policy.”
The propaganda line of Israeli hard-liner Natan Sharansky upon which the president’s inaugural address was based was virtually a complete turn-about from Bush’s rhetoric in the 2000 presidential campaign.
This contradiction is a point that—theoretically—should have given pause to many Republicans who voted for Bush the first time he ran for the presidency.
Enthusiastically proclaiming in a front-page analysis on January 21, 2005 that Bush’s address laid the “groundwork for [a] global freedom mission,” The Washington Times—a leading “neo-conservative” voice which advocates a hard-line globalist foreign policy in sync with Israel’s security demands—stated flat out that:
President Bush’s inaugural address sends the United States on a new, expansionist and far more aggressive global mission to free oppressed countries from dictators—a sharp departure from his 2000 campaign that warned against becoming the world’s policeman . . . an ambitious, perhaps unprecedented internationalist doctrine that could deploy U.S. military power far beyond America’s present commitments . . . .
For its own part, the Times’s daily “liberal” counterpart, The Washington Post, declared editorially on January 21, 2005 that Bush’s address was “more Wilsonian than conservative”—that is, recalling the messianic internationalism of former U.S. President Woodrow Wilson, hardly a hero of American nationalists or traditional conservatives.
Effectively endorsing Bush’s turnabout, the Post acknowledged.
that Bush’s pronouncement “promised an aggressive internationalism, one that if seriously pursued would transform relations with many nations around the world,”saying that if Bush is serious,U.S. policy “is on the verge of a historic change.”
James Steinberg, the former deputy national security advisor in the Clinton administration, found Bush’s emergence as the voice of globalism quite intriguing, inasmuch as it is a determined betrayal of what had been traditional Republican opposition to international meddling.
Steinberg told The New York Times on January 21, 2005 that it is “quite remarkable that one of the notions that’s been so resisted by Republicans is the idea of a deep interdependence in the world, and now [Bush has] essentially adopted the notion that tyranny anywhere threatens freedom anywhere.”
In the same vein, hard-line American-based Zionist Robert Kagan, one of the most aggressive neo-conservative media voices, echoed American Free Press (AFP) when he wrote in the Post on January 23, 2005 that Bush’s “goals are now the antithesis of conservatism.”
According to Kagan,“They are revolutionary.”
In its January 31, 2005 editorial,AFP called Bush a “revolutionary,” and this came very much to the dismay of many traditional conservatives who—inexplicably—still viewed the president as the voice of American patriotism.
These folks are evidently unaware that what is called “neo-conservatism” is anything but what Americans long viewed to be “conservative” in the traditional American nationalist sense of the word.
However, Zionist Robert Kagan understands this distinction and that’s precisely why he said that “Bush may lose the support of most oldfashioned conservatives” once they realize what his new internationalist policy is all about. In short, conservatives have been “had.”And that’s why AFP reminded its readers not to forget what Jesus said: “Beware wolves in sheep’s clothing” or, rather,“Beware the Judas Goats.”
In the meantime, however, Sharansky’s influence on American Republicanism—under George Bush and in the years ahead—remains substantial. In fact, there’s a new brand of Republicanism, at least according to Ken Mehlman, whom President George W. Bush personally hand picked, following the 2004 election, to serve as chairman of the Republican National Committee.
In a March 14, 2005 speech in Washington to the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC), the lobby for Israel, the GOP’s national chairman candidly and enthusiastically described himself as a “Sharansky Republican.”
What was so striking is that this appeared to be the first time in American history that the chairman of one of the national parties used the name and ideology of a political leader from a foreign nation—one known as an “extremist” at that—to describe his own ideology.
In the past, there were self-described “Taft Republicans,” who supported the presidential ambitions of the nationalistic and traditionally conservative Sen. Robert Taft of Ohio—popularly known as “Mr. Republican”—who was the undisputed leader of the America First bloc in Congress from 1936 until his untimely (and some say “suspicious”) death in 1953.
Later, there were the conservative “Goldwater Republicans”who—under the leadership of Sen. Barry Goldwater (Ariz.)—set the stage for the ascendancy of the “Reagan Republicans” who came to power in 1980 under the popular two-term president, Ronald Reagan.
At the same time, in opposition to the Taft and Goldwater Republicans, there were the more liberal and internationalist-minded Republicans who rallied behind New York Governor Thomas E. Dewey and Wall Street lawyer Wendell Willkie,dubbing themselves—naturally—“Dewey Republicans” and “Willkie Republicans.”
And later, of course,many of those same party leaders evolved into “Rockefeller Republicans” following New York Governor Nelson Rockefeller. And there were even a few folks, for a time, who called themselves “Eisenhower Republicans,” stressing their so-called “mainstream, moderate” point of view (however defined) in the spirit of America’s 35th president, Dwight D. Eisenhower.
Now, however, the new GOP national chairman is not calling himself a “Reagan Republican” or even a “Bush Republican” (after the reigning GOP president who is wildly popular among grass-roots members of his party), but, instead, is hailing a foreign leader—a known extremist—as the role model for what 21st century Republicanism is all about.
And this is a direct legacy of George W. Bush who so proudly installed Sharansky as one of the GOP’s ideological dictators, betraying the historic legacy of the GOP. Sharansky’s policy of promoting “global democracy”is hardly in the American tradition, but it’s now part and parcel of what the “modern” Republican Party is all about.
Mieux que Wesley Clark (qui n'est pas néocon, seul son arrière grand-père est juif), les néocons juifs eux-mêmes donnent la liste des pays qu'ils voudraient faire tomber:
VIDEO - THE WAR PARTY (BBC documentary | May 2003) @2:13: Michael Ledeen (pas juif, mais néocon ultra sioniste, le père de la doctrine de "destruction créatrice" appliquée au Moyen-Orient): "nous devons faire tomber un certain nombre de régimes qui apportent leur soutien à un réseaux de d'organisations terroristes..." "Syrie, Arabie Saoudite, Iran, Corée du Nord, et puis il y a la LIBYE" (...)"
Réussiront-ils à NOUS entraîner dans toutes ces guerres qu'ils voudraient mener contre LEURS ennemis?
NEW YORK TIMES: U.S.-Financed Groups Had Supporting Role in Arab Uprisings
WASHINGTON — Even as the United States poured billions of dollars into foreign military programs and anti-terrorism campaigns, a small core of American government-financed organizations were promoting democracy in authoritarian Arab states. The money spent on these programs was minute compared with efforts led by the Pentagon. But as American officials and others look back at the uprisings of the Arab Spring, they are seeing that the United States’ democracy-building campaigns played a bigger role in fomenting protests than was previously known, with key leaders of the movements having been trained by the Americans in campaigning, organizing through new media tools and monitoring elections.
A number of the groups and individuals directly involved in the revolts and reforms sweeping the region, including the April 6 Youth Movement in Egypt, the Bahrain Center for Human Rights and grass-roots activists like Entsar Qadhi, a youth leader in Yemen, received training and financing from groups like the International Republican Institute, the National Democratic Institute and Freedom House, a nonprofit human rights organization based in Washington, according to interviews in recent weeks and American diplomatic cables obtained by WikiLeaks. The work of these groups often provoked tensions between the United States and many Middle Eastern leaders, who frequently complained that their leadership was being undermined, according to the cables.
The Republican and Democratic institutes are loosely affiliated with the Republican and Democratic Parties. They were created by Congress and are financed through the National Endowment for Democracy, which was set up in 1983 to channel grants for promoting democracy in developing nations. The National Endowment receives about $100 million annually from Congress. Freedom House also gets the bulk of its money from the American government, mainly from the State Department.
No one doubts that the Arab uprisings are home grown, rather than resulting from “foreign influence,” as alleged by some Middle Eastern leaders. “We didn’t fund them to start protests, but we did help support their development of skills and networking,” said Stephen McInerney, executive director of the Project on Middle East Democracy, a Washington-based advocacy and research group. “That training did play a role in what ultimately happened, but it was their revolution. We didn’t start it.” (...)
VIDEO - RT: U.S. provides high-tech help to anti-government activists in Middle East The U.S. official hoping for a “ripple effect” is Michael Posner, Assistant Secretary of State for the Bureau of Democracy, Human Rights and Labor. Prior to joining the State Department, Posner was the Executive Director and then President of Human Rights First. Among Human Rights First’s donors are such notable human rights advocates as George Soros and Lockheed Martin. On its national council in 2007 was Abner Mikva, one of President Obama’s earliest pro-Israel mentors.
U.S. funding tech firms that help Mideast dissidents evade government censorsWashington 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.
Internet and cell phones the ‘best weapons against dictatorships’ ---Social networking sites like Facebook and Twitter have become an important tool for democracy and human rights activists in the Middle East and North Africa, where it has played a pivotal role in helping organize protests against repressive governments. [note: SURTOUT QUAND LA CIA ET LE MOSSAD VEULENT TWITTER UNE RÉVOLUTION DANS LA RUE ARABE CONTRE UN MÉCHANT "DICTATEUR" À LA SADDAM (c-à-d quelqu'un qu'ils veulent REMPLACER!)! RAPPELONS LES MANIFS ANTI-AHMADINEJAD L'AN DERNIER EN IRAN... Ça ressemble pas mal à ce qui se passe actuellement en Libye et en Égypte: là aussi c'est des armées de petits TWITTERS qui ont mobilisé les foules. Le Mossad et les services secrets occidentaux maîtrisent ces réseaux, qu'ils "influencent" dans façon démesurée, pour ne pas dire complètement.]
The New York Times and The Washington Post have finally admitted what AMERICAN FREE PRESS (AFP) asserted as far back as Feb. 14: There is much more to the so-called “grassroots” revolutions in the Mideast than meets the eye.
While critics accused AFP of purveying “conspiracy theories,” the Times and the Post have now laid it on the line: American tax dollars have bankrolled a host of both private and quasi-public institutions that have been underwriting the revolutionary activity wreaking havoc throughout the Arab world.
The first inkling came in a report buried inside the Post on March 10, under the headline “U.S. funds web firms that help Mideast dissidents skirt censors.” The report read in part:
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. . . .
Federal agencies have funded these companies through grants and contracts. By late spring, the State Department is expected to begin doling out even more money—about $30 million—to technology firms and human rights groups that help and train people to shatter [Internet security] and surf the web without being tracked.
On April 15 The New York Times was even more direct when it reported flat-out the fact that the U.S. had been a key behind-the-scenes force in instigating the so-called “Arab spring.” Under the headline “U.S. groups helped nurture Arab uprisings,” the report reads in part:
Even as the United States poured billions of dollars into foreign military programs and anti-terrorism campaigns, a small core of American government-financed organizations were promoting democracy in authoritarian Arab states. The money spent on these programs was minute compared with efforts led by the Pentagon.
But as American officials and others look back at the uprisings of the Arab spring, they are seeing that the United States’ democracy-building campaigns played a bigger role in fomenting protests than was previously known, with key leaders of the movements having been trained by the Americans in campaigning, organizing through new media tools and monitoring elections.
A number of the groups and individuals directly involved in the revolts and reforms sweeping the region . . . received training and financing from groups like the International Republican Institute, the National Democratic Institute and Freedom House, a nonprofit human rights organization based in Washington. . . .
The Republican and Democratic institutes are loosely affiliated with the Republican and Democratic Parties. They were created by Congress and are financed through the National Endowment for Democracy, which was set up in 1983 to channel grants for promoting democracy in developing nations. The National Endowment receives about $100 million annually from Congress. Freedom House also gets the bulk of its money from the American government, mainly from the State Department.
With the truth of U.S. involvement in the orchestrated revolutions now being steadily unveiled, on April 18 The Washington Post stated in the headline of a front page lead story that “U.S. secretly backed Syrian opposition groups, cables released by WikiLeaks show.” The Post story elaborated:
The State Department has secretly financed Syrian political opposition groups and related projects, including a satellite TV channel that beams anti-government programming into the country, according to previously undisclosed diplomatic cables. The London-based satellite channel, Barada TV, began broadcasting in April 2009 but has ramped up operations to cover the mass protests in Syria as part of a long-standing campaign to overthrow the country’s autocratic leader, Bashar al-Assad. . . . Barada TV is closely affiliated with the Movement for Justice and Development, a London-based network of Syrian exiles.
Classified U.S. diplomatic cables show that the State Department has funneled as much as $6 million to the group since 2006 to operate the satellite channel and finance other activities inside Syria. . . .
The U.S. money for Syrian opposition figures began flowing under President George W. Bush after he effectively froze political ties with Damascus in 2005. The financial backing has continued under President Obama, even as his administration sought to rebuild relations with Assad.
The U.S.-sponsored revolutions, in many respects, validate AFP’s notation on Feb. 14 that the World Zionist Organization’s Israeli-based magazine Kuvinim (as far back as 1982) had outlined a geopolitical strategy to disrupt and balkanize the Arab world, dividing the Arab states from within. That Israel’s oft-touted “closest ally”—the United States—has been found to now be implementing the agenda is to be expected.
One particularly influential hard-line American supporter of Israel, former Sen. Norm Coleman (R-Minn.), explained in a Feb. 24 commentary in The Washington Times that supporting what was described as “democratic turmoil” was worth the risk for the United States.
After all, Coleman said, if “extremists” should happen to come to power in any of the nations where the U.S. had helped instigate revolutions, the United States must “prepare to confront their aggressive plans with stalwart resistance.”
In case you didn’t figure that out, Coleman meant military intervention. That’s right. More war.
The Zionist-founded, Zionist-controlled NED is as subversive as the CIA.
Controlled Opposition: Zionism 101
It was the mass murderer of tens of millions of Russian Christians, and leader of the Bolsheviks, Vladimir Lenin, who said “The best way to control the opposition is to lead it ourselves.” It should come as to no surprise to anyone that the Zionists who identify themselves as neo-conservative, all of whom are admitted ex-Leninists and ex-Trotskyists (30), are the leaders behind implanting “pro-democracy” groups throughout the MENA to control opposition to global Zionist hegemony. The board of directors at the National Endowment For Democracy (NED), the leader of the “pro-democracy” project in Libya (31), as well as the notorious globalist institution Freedom House (32), are comprised almost entirely of neo-cons.
The foundation of NED was built between 1982-1984 at the behest of a research study headed by staunch Zionist Allen Weinstein, who has headed a plethora of globalist projects masked by the pursuit of democracy. Weinstein has authored numerous books in defense of the Zionist entity’s genocidal operations throughout the Middle East, including one in particular that stressed the necessity of America’s commitment to the illegitimate Israeli state (33). Allen Weinstein publicly admitted in 1991, that the NED’s activities are modeled after the CIA’s operations, “A lot of what we do today was done covertly 25 years ago by the CIA.” CIA monies are laundered through the NED (34), which serves as a perfect cover due to its perceived nature as a organization championing the cause of democracy.
The current head of NED is Carl Gershman, a ubiquitous globalist figure and zealous Zionist who has received awards for furthering the CIA’s agenda in Tibet and who has composed a study entitled “Israel, the Arabs and the Middle East” defending al-Nakba and all of Israel’s colonial endeavors (35). Gershman also worked for the most venomous of all Zionist Lobby organizations, the Israeli intelligence wing known as the ADL. Gershman is rabidly anti-Muslim and anti-Christian; he has stated that the Qur’an “vilifies Jews” and that the Christian World spread the “blood libel.” Additionally, he believes that Arabs and Arab culture suffer from a “moral sickness” and has gone on record to chastise any and all people who have associated Mossad with the 9/11 terror attacks as “anti-Semites (36).”
NED is already deeply embedded in the fabric of Egypt, and has reared its ugly head from the shadows upon the command of Gershman since the fall of Mubarak (37). With Qaddafi upsetting the Zionist dragon to the point of rage, Israel-Firster Gershman initiated the activation of the democratic army. Just three of the NED-funded groups taking part in the “pro-democracy” protests in Libya are the Akhbar Libya Cultural Limited (ALCF), Libya Human and Political Development Forum (LHPDF) and the Transparency Libya Limited (TL). These groups were funded in the hundreds of thousands by NED (38).
MEPI is an NED-backed group greatly involved in the deconstruction of Libya.
NED’s chief sister organization, the National Democratic Institute (NDI), headed by Zionist war criminal and butcher of Iraq’s children Madeline Albright (39), is also deeply involved in the Libyan uprising, as is a smaller NED-linked group, the Middle East Partnership Initiative (MEPI). Aswat, an Arabic propaganda hub in Libya, Libya’s General People’s Committee for Foreign Liaison and International Cooperation, My Arabic Library (MAL) and Youth Of Today, Leaders Of Tomorrow are all funded by NDI and MEPI (40). So, an umbrella of organizations controlled by an anti-Muslim, anti-Christian, anti-Arab, pro-war, pro-Zionist war monger is looking out for the interest of the Libyan people? Right.
(read the rest...)
“The toppling of Egypt’s modern-day pharaoh through peaceful mass protests, aided by Facebook and Twitter, marks a watershed for Egypt and the entire Arab world,” wrote Larry Diamond, in a noteworthy February 14 op-ed in the San Francisco Chronicle. “Contrary to widespread anxieties in the U.S. foreign policy establishment,” the prominent advocate of American taxpayer-funded “democracy promotion” maintained, “it will also serve the long-term interests of the United States—and Israel.” Continue reading →
Maidhc Ó Cathail of www.thepassionateattachment.com joins the program to offer his extensive (and some might say unmatched) analysis of Middle East events. He writes for Antiwar.com, Arab News, Dissident Voice, Foreign Policy Journal, Forward Magazine (Syria), Information Clearing House, Journal of Turkish Weekly, Khaleej Times, Ma’an News Agency, Middle East Monitor, Palestine Chronicle, Tehran Times, The Nation (Pakistan), Washington Report on Middle East Affairs and many more. His writings are also published in audio/video format at the youtube channel argonium79.
What these books still conceal, however, is the fact that the neocons are motivated by their Jewish ethnicity and the interests of the state of Israel. Instead the neocons are made to appear as an ideological group loyal solely to what they believe is good for the US. Consequently, this approach, despite allowing for some elements of truth, distorts the overall picture in a serious way.
Rabbin : la chute de Moubarak, prélude à l’émergence du Messie Sauveur
Ainsi, après le rabbin Ovadia Yossef, qui a appelé Cheikh Al-Azhar à déclarer l'amnistie pour Moubarak, voici le rabbin Ephraïm Melvovic qui annonce sur une vidéo diffusée sur YouTube, que la chute de Moubarak après 30 années au pouvoir, est un prélude à l'approche de l'émergence de Christ Sauveur, qui va construire un grand royaume aux Juifs et leur octroyer le plein contrôle du monde !!
Le rabbin Melvovic affirme que l'âge du Christ Sauveur est de trente ans d’après le Talmud, et le Christ Sauveur apparaîtra au moment où les peuples seront confrontés à des crises et des difficultés, ce qui se passe actuellement dans la région en Syrie, au Yémen et en, Libye, selon les termes.
Nous rappelons que la religion juive ne reconnaît pas que Jésus comme étant le Christ, au contraire elle croit que le Christ apparaîtra avant la fin du monde.
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.
Le professeur judéocritique Kevin MacDonald a de "drôles" d'idées: il appelle les nationalistes européens à sceller une alliance avec les militants anti-Islam qui favorisent le segment le plus extrémiste des colons juifs sionistes (ex: Geert Wilders), une alliance en vertu de laquelle nous obtiendrions l'expulsion des immigrés musulmans d'Europe en échange de notre appui à l'expulsion des autochtones Palestiniens hors de leurs terres. Alors tout ira pour le mieux dans le meilleur des mondes...
Je n'invente rien. Lisez par vous-mêmes:
Michael Hoffman rapportait le mois dernier:
Dans une entrevue accordée le 21 dec 2010 à l'émission de radio-internet (Race and Reason) de l'universitaire croate Dr Tom Sunic, le professeur nationaliste blanc Kevin MacDonald du California State College à Long Beach, a appelé à une "alliance" avec les israéliens d' "extrême droite" pour l'expulsion des Palestiniens de la Palestine, en échange de l'expulsion des musulmans d'Europe. Ce qui suit sont des retranscriptions d'extraits de l'émission:
Prof. Kevin M. MacDonald:
"... Des gens comme (le Hollandais) Geert Wilders sont le prototype de ce type de politicien ... Ouais, ils sont très pro-sioniste et ils ne sont pas seulement pro-sioniste, ils sont en faveur du segment de la droite la plus radicale de l'échiquier politique israélien, donc on parle du mouvement des colons, ce genre de radicaux ethno-nationalistes, et, bien sûr, ce qu'ils ont en commun c'est d'être très critiques envers l'Islam. En fait, de mon point de vue je ne leur souhaite que du bien. S'ils réussissent à bâtir des partis politiques qui sont opposés à l'immigration musulmane et sont opposés à ce que la culture musulmane devienne un courant central en Europe, je crois que c'est tout pour le mieux.
... les déclarations de Wilders sur l'Islam sont exacts et visent droit dans le mille... Je pense qu'il fait un très bon travail ...
"... Ce qu'ils veulent, en Israël est cette société d'apartheid, cette société raciste ... Il y a une tension croissante. L'Israélien est délégitimé partout dans le monde ... Il y a cet élément d'extrême droite en Israël qui veut faire des alliances avec des gens qui ont des idées similaires en Europe ou ailleurs. Euh, ils peuvent trouver ce terrain d'entente. C'est un bon développement en fin de compte ...
"... Si nous pouvions obtenir l'expulsion des musulmans hors d'Europe en échange du fait qu'Israël puisse survivre en expulsant les Palestiniens vers la Jordanie, je scellerais ce pacte en un clin d'oeil..."
Dr Sunic: "Excellent Eh bien, Kevin, j'ai toujours plaisir à parler de vous ...."
[fin de citation]
L'idée avancée par Kevin MacDonald, comme quoi il serait envisageable de laisser les juifs déporter les Palestiniens en échange de la déportation des arabes et musulmans hors d'Europe repose sur au moins deux absurdités. La première absurdité dans le projet de MacDonald consiste à croire que les arabes et les musulmans ne viennent pas chez nous pace qu'ils le veulent mais parce qu'ils seraient "forcés par les juifs". C'est un non-sens! Les Arabes et les musulmans ne viennent pas en Europe parce que "les juifs les y ont forcés", ils immigrent en Europe tout simplement parce que c'est ce qu'ils souhaitent! Seconde absurdité: l'idée de MacDonald sous-entend que les juifs auraient effectivement le pouvoir de renvoyer les Arabes et les musulmans hors d'Europe? Ce que MacDonald ne dit c'est comment les Juifs seraient-ils capables de repousser les Arabes et les musulmans hors d'Europe. C'est une absurdité complète, encore une fois! Les juifs n'ont pas le pouvoir de renvoyer chez eux les Arabes et les musulmans! Cette seconde absurdité est liée à la première, puisque cela implique que les immigrants arabes et musulmans viendraient en Europe et quitteraient celle-ci sous la direction des juifs, suivant la volonté des juifs. Or la réalité est que les juifs n'ont aucun contrôle sur le fait que les arabes et les musulmans décident de quitter leur pays. Ce ne sont pas les juifs qui ont "envoyé" les arabes et les musulmans dans nos nations occidentales. Ce sont les Arabes et les musulmans qui ont décidé eux-mêmes de quitter leur pays et de venir s'établir en Occident. En faisant miroiter cette solution impossible, MacDonald a convaincu quantité d'Identitaires que ce serait une bonne idée de s'allier avec les colons juifs extrémistes contre les arabes et les musulmans.
"Je
suis persuadé que les Japonais, les Chinois et les peuples régis par
l'Islam seront toujours plus proches de nous que la France, par exemple,
en dépit de la parenté du sang qui coule dans nos veines. Le malheur
veut que la France ait dégénéré au cours des siècles et que ses élites
aient été subverties par l'esprit juif. Cela a pris de telles
proportions que cela est irréparable. La France est condamnée à faire
une politique juive." (Testament politique d'Hitler, Adolf Hitler, notes de Martin Bormann, préface de Trevor-Roper, éd. Fayard, 1959, 2 avril 1945, p. 180)
I am sure that the Japanese, the Chinese and the
peoples of Islam will always be closer to us than, for example,
France, in spite of the fact that we are related by blood. It
is a tragedy that France has consistently degenerated in the
course of centuries and that her upper classes have been
perverted by the Jews. France is now condemned to the pursuit
of a Jewish policy. (The Political Testament of Adolf Hitler, April 2, 1945)
"Only
in the Roman Empire and in Spain under Arab domination has culture been
a potent factor. Under the latter, the standard of civilisation
attained was wholly admirable; to Spain flocked the greatest scientists,
thinkers, astronomers and mathematicians of the world, and side by side
there flourished a spirit of sweet human tolerance and a sense of the
purest chivalry. Then, with the advent of Christianity, came the
barbarians. The chivalry of the Castilians has been inherited from the
Arabs. Had Charles Martel not been victorious at Poitiers — already, you
see, the world had fallen into the hands of the Jews, so gutless a
thing was Christianity! — then we should in all probabihty have been
converted to Mohammedanism, that cult which glorifies heroism and which
opens the seventh Heaven to the bold warrior alone. Then the Germanic
races would have conquered the world. Christianity alone prevented them
from doing so." (HITLER'S TABLE TALK, August 27, 1941)
La
civilisation a été l’un des éléments constitutifs de la puissance de
l’Empire romain. Ce fut aussi le cas en Espagne, sous la domination des
Arabes. La civilisation atteignit là un degré qu’elle a rarement
atteint. Vraiment une époque d’humanisme intégral, où régna le plus pur
esprit chevaleresque. L’intrusion du christianisme a amené le triomphe
de la barbarie. L’esprit chevaleresque des Castillans est en réalité un
héritage des Arabes. Si à Poitiers Charles Martel avait été battu, la
face du monde eût changé. Puisque le monde était déjà voué à l'influence
judaïque (et son produit, le christianisme, est une chose si fade!) il
eût beauicoup mieux valu que le mahométisme triomphât. Cette religion
récompense l'héroïsme, elle promet aux guerriers les joies du septième
ciel... Animés par un tel esprit, les Germains eussent conquis le monde.
C'est le christianisme qui les en a empêchés. (Libres propos sur la
guerre et la paix recueillis sur l’ordre de Martin Bormann, Adolf
Hitler, éd. Flammarion, 1954, 28 août 1942, p. 297)
"L’image
que Hitler se faisait de l’Église officielle apparaissait clairement
dans ces propos que lui aurait tenus une délégation de notabilités
arabes et dont il faisait sans cesse état. Quand, au VIIIe siècle,
auraient déclaré ces visiteurs, les musulmans avaient voulu envahir
l’Europe centrale en passant par la France, ils avaient été battus à la
bataille de Poitiers. Si les Arabes avaient gagné cette bataille, le
monde entier serait aujourd’hui musulman. Il sauraient en effet imposé
aux peuples germaniques une religion dont le dogme, propager la foi par
l’épée et soumettre tous les peuples à cette foi, était comme fait pour
les Germains. Par suite de leur infériorité raciale, les conquérants
n’auraient pu se maintenir contre les indigènes plus vigoureux et
habitués à la rudesse de cette nature où ils avaient grandi, si bien
que, pour finir, ce ne sont pas les Arabes mais les Germains, convertis à
la foi musulmane, qui auraient été à la tête de cet empire mondial
islamique. Hitler avait l’habitude de conclure ce récit par la
considération suivante : « Nous avons la malchance de ne pas posséder la
bonne religion. Pourquoi n’avons-nous pas la religion des Japonais,
pour qui se sacrifier à sa patrie est le bien suprême ? La religion
musulmane aussi serait bien plus appropriée que ce christianisme, avec
sa tolérance amollissante." (Au coeur du Troisième Reich, Albert Speer)
Hitler had been much impressed by a scrap of history he had learned
from a delegation of distinguished Arabs. When the Mohammedans attempted
to penetrate beyond France into Central Europe during the eighth
century, his visitors had told him, they had been driven back at the
Battle of Tours. Had the Arabs won this battle, the world would be
Mohammedan today. For theirs was a religion that believed in spreading
the faith by the sword and subjugating all nations to that faith. The
Germanic peoples would have become heirs to that religion. Such a creed
was pedectly suited to the Germanic temperament. Hitler said that the
conquering Arabs, because of their racial inferiority, would in the long
run have been unable to contend with the harsher climate and conditions
of the country. They could not have kept down the more vigorous
natives, so that ultimately not Arabs but Islamized Germans could have
stood at the head of this Mohammedan Empire. Hitler usually concluded
this historical speculation by remarking: "You see, it's been our
misfortune to have the wrong religion. Why didn't we have the religion
of the Japanese, who regard sacrifice for the Fatherland as the highest
good? The Mohammedan religion too would have been much more compatible
to us than Christianity. Why did it have to be Christianity with its
meekness and flabbiness?" (Inside the Third Reich, Albert Speer)
Permettons de rappeler que Heinrich Himmler aurait difficilement pardonné un tel "dérapage" de la part du professeur MacDonald!
Notre
point de vue sur la question juive est la suivante : la prise de
position de l’Amérique et de l’Angleterre quant aux juifs ne nous
intéresse d’aucune façon. Ce qui est clair, c’est que nous ne voulons
pas les avoir en Allemagne et dans le domaine de vie allemand en raison
des décennies d’expérience après la [première] guerre mondiale et que
nous n’engagerons aucune discussion à ce sujet. Si l’Amérique veut les
prendre, nous nous en féliciterons. Mais
il doit être exclu, et là-dessus une garantie devra nous être donnée,
que les juifs que nous laisserons sortir par la Suisse puissent jamais
être refoulés vers la Palestine. Nous
savons que les Arabes, tout autant que nous Allemands le faisons,
refusent les juifs et nous ne voulons pas nous prêter à une indécence
telle que d’envoyer de nouveaux juifs à ce pauvre peuple martyrisé par
les juifs.” (18.1.1945 MF/Bn. Heinrich Himmler; Document de
l’US-Document-Center Berlin. Photographie dans Werner Maser, Nürnberg,
Tribunal der Sieger, Droemer Knauer, München-Zürich, 1979, p. 262-263)
Il faudrait avertir les
Identitaires qu'ils ne peuvent à la fois dénoncer Geert Wilders et
soutenir Kevin MacDonald (que Boris complimente dans Les intellectuels enjuivés) car ce dernier soutient totalement Geert Wilders. Boris dit que "cela
ne change rien au fait que MacDonald est un pur antijuif… Par
ailleurs, le mouvement ultra-sioniste dont il parle est minoritaire, y
compris au sein du sionisme européen. Les sionistes européens n’aiment
pas les colons, ni le Likoud en général".
Le sioniste juif le plus extrémiste tel
que le colon israélien règne en roi et maître au sommet de tous les
lobbys juifs internationaux, et cela même si ces derniers donnent
parfois l'air de les critiquer. Le lobby juif américain qui contrôle la
machine de guerre suit la ligne de Netanyahou, qui représente le
mouvement des colons extrémistes. Ce sont les sionistes les plus
extrémistes qui exercent le plus grand contrôle sur la politique et les
guerres dans le monde. MacDonald est sans aucun doute antijuif. Là n'est
pas la question. Le problème est que MacDonald nous appelle à rejoindre
les organisations nationalistes contrôlées par les juifs et obsédées
par l'Islam (ex: Geert Wilders), alors que ces organisations appuient
les plus fanatiques juifs talmudiques homicides, ceux-là même qui sont
en train de dépatrier les indigènes Palestiniens --- tout comme nous les
Indigènes Européens. (Notez que ces prétendus nationalistes anti-Islam
parlent très peu d'immigration, sauf pour remettre ça sur le dos de
l'Islam.) Si les nationalistes européens croient pouvoir profiter d'une
"alliance stratégique" avec les nationalistes contrôlés par les juifs et
qui supportent financièrement et moralement les exactions des sionistes
juifs les plus assoiffés de sang (les colons psychopathes talmudiques
ultra!), alors ces nationalistes courent tout droit à leur perte. Nul ne
peut gagner en pactisant avec le Diable. Ces nationalistes
pro-sionistes et anti-Islam ne sont plus des nationalistes, ils ne sont
que des instruments des Juifs. MacDonald semble intelligent, mais s'il
proclame qu'il nous faut rejoindre les organisations prétendument
nationalistes contrôlées par les juifs et qui appuient l'expatriation
des autochtones palestiniens (Chrétiens, Musulmans ou autre), alors là
ça ne va pas du tout, MacDonald n'est pas un exemple à suivre. On ne
peut être à la fois antijuif et partisan d'une alliance avec les juifs
sionistes, cela n'a pas de sens.
Kevin MacDonald dans Le National-Socialisme, une stratégie évolutionnaire et anti-juive de groupe:
"En conclusion, le judaïsme et le national-socialisme apparaissent comme deux stratégies de groupe parfaitement symétriques, l’un étant le miroir inversé de l’autre."
MacDonald dit que le nazisme, comme tout anti-sémitisme, ne serait qu'une copie du judaïsme!
Il reconnaîtrait donc la "légitimité" du judaïsme?
Michael Collins Piper reads the review of a book, shows how wrong it is to think like some white nationalists do that it is a good thing to emulate the jews and makes alliances with them against the indigenous populations of the world such as in Palestine.
Download Here
THANK YOU FOR ASSISTING WITH THE COSTS ASSOCIATED WITH PRODUCING THIS PROGRAM
Can the Jewish Model Help the West Survive?
by Prof. Kevin MacDonald
http://www.kevinmacdonald.net/WestSurvive.htm
Vous avez bien lu: il recommande que nous imitions les juifs! (Ça me rappelle cette vidéo Antiracist Hitler
qui est pro-israel et qui identifie le multiculturalisme-métissage à un
néo-nazisme... Ça reprend l'argumentaire des juifs sionistes israéliens qui soutiennent que le multiculturalisme est un échec en Europe : "ce sont
les nazis des temps modernes qui veulent nous pousser à nous métisser et
nous assimiler à la population mondiale".)
Dans cet article, il
reprend certaines idées avancées dans son livre "Separation and its
Discontents", dont voici quelques-unes des idées les plus loufoques:
Une meilleure compréhension des tensions insolubles entre juifs et
non-juifs peut conduire à une amélioration de ces relations.
Ce que
les juifs veulent est tout simplement survivre: en dépassant les
non-juifs dans tous les domaines (politique, économique, médiatique,
etc.) et en évitant de s'assimiler (séparation), les juifs ne font
qu'essayer de survivre (pour gagner la "lutte pour la survie" selon
Darwin).
Les juifs sont normaux: leur comportement est normal et compréhensible et mérite d'être émulé pour notre bien.
L'antisémitisme réagit au refus des juifs de s'assimiler (séparation). Leur souffrance vient du refuse de s'assimiler.
L'antisémitisme est l'expression d'une volonté d'entrer en compétition avec les juifs.
Le national-socialisme comme réaction antisémitique est une forme d'émulation du comportement des juifs.
Bref, il nous sert une parfaite justification du comportement des juifs, selon lui il est normal et on devrait faire pareil.
Kevin
MacDonald passe pour un grand opposant des juifs, mai en fait il y a
pas grand chose avec quoi les universitaires juifs pourraient être en
désaccord dans son livre...
En fait les juifs ne font pas
simplement de tenter de survivre, ils essaient de vivre dans l'opulence
la plus obscène (des fortunes de milliards de dollars), après avoir
acquis de grands fortunes par la tromperie et le crime, non pas par le
travail -- c'est bien sûr les non-juifs qui font le dur labeur. Cela
rend les non-juif esclaves des juifs, car avec leur argent les juifs
peuvent acheter les services et le produit du travail des non-juifs. Les
juifs cherchent à survivre dans un monde où ils exercent une domination
complète sur les non-juifs dans les domaines économique, politique et
culturel. Vouloir simplement survire et vouloir subvertir la
civilisation des non-juifs pour la dominer et la contrôler, ce sont deux
choses complètement différentes. C'est "normal" si on considère un type
psychopathe comme un type "normal"! Le non-juif passe pour un simple
incompétent, un perdant face à un compétiteur efficace et performant qui
suit les règles. Il semble que pour Kevin Macdonald, la simple lutte
pour la survie justifie les pires expressions de psychopathie: le
comportement le plus criminel et l'absence totale d'éthique!
Les
nationalistes blancs disent qu'on peut pas s'allier aux musulmans comme
aux étrangers en général, parce qu'il faut préserver la race blanche et
que le seul moyen d'y arriver est la séparation (faire comme les juifs,
ne pas se mêler aux autres). Au contraire, s'ils tiennent vraiment à la
survie des blancs et à la survie de leur nation, américaine, française,
canadienne ou québécoise, ils devraient prendre conscience que l'heure
est grave, les juifs ont déjà en main les commandes de presque tout, et
donc on peut pas se permettre de perdre. Il faut donc envisager tous les
moyens nécessaires pour assurer la victoire. Si on ne les arrête pas,
il sera trop tard. Dans ce combat, on ne choisit pas ses frères d'armes,
car si on se met à être capricieux et à exclure ceux qu'on n'aime pas
mais qui combattent bien l'ennemi, on se condamne à perdre la plupart et
les plus efficaces de nos frères d'armes. On se condamne à perdre la
guerre tout simplement parce qu'on n'aura pas saisi l'occasion de faire
des alliances avec des gens qui ont le même ennemi que nous et qui le
combattent eux aussi comme ils peuvent, et parfois même encore plus
efficacement que nous. Aussi, s'allier, ne serait-ce que par un accord
de principe, à d'autres groupes ne veut pas dire fusionner avec eux et
devenir la même chose qu'eux. Une alliance peut être circonstancielle et
temporaire, comme une alliance militaire par exemple.
Dans
le combat contre la juiverie, on
peut pas se permettre le luxe et le caprice de choisir avec qui on
combat, aux côtés de qui on combat, on prend ce qui vient, on choisit
pas nos frères d'armes. Si on tient rester "purs" et à repousser ceux
qui font pas notre affaire on va se retrouver tous seuls et on se prive
en même temps du
travail des gens très dynamiques comme ces militants pro-Palestiniens,
qui
dénoncent efficacement la mainmise sioniste sur notre gouvernement.
Même si on se préoccupe davantage de notre pays à nous que de la
situation des Palestiniens, il faut reconnaître que nous sommes occupés
par les mêmes forces sionistes juifistes. On a le même ennemi.
On
débattera de qui on est (Identité) lorsqu'on aura vaincu cette menace
existentielle. Notre identité c'est pas une question de vie ou de mort.
Ce qui est une question de vie ou de mort, c'est ce combat contre la
juiverie internationale, car elle pousse délibérément le monde à la
destruction, à une grande guerre mondiale dont personne sauf eux ne
sortira vainqueur.
Contrairement à Kevin McDonald, David Duke trouve ses appuis non pas chez les Juifs extrémistes mais chez les antisionistes, particulièrement les musulmans et les arabes antisionistes, où il a souvent donné des conférences et chez qui il a trouvé de solides appuis. C'est le cas aussi de Michael Collins Piper, qui est considéré comme un "Dhimmi" par la communauté musulmane, c'est-à-dire qu'il est protégé par eux, en raison de l'ensemble de son oeuvre antisioniste et antijuive qui l'a porté à la défense de TOUTES les victimes de la juiverie internationale (à commencer par soi-même), incluant, de fait, les musulmans.
ed note–please pay mind to the following sentences in the piece–
‘During the 2000s Sweden took in more Iraqi refugees than any other Western nation, reaching a peak of 18,559 in 2007.’
‘According to the Migration
Board nearly 11,000 Syrians have obtained asylum in Sweden since 2012
and the figure is expected to rise.’
So, for all those white nationalist types grumbling over
the fact that ‘non whites’ are ‘invading’ white lands, but at the same
time deny that the wars being fought and funded by white countries
against those in the Middle East have anything to do with this problem,
please explain then why–as this piece indicated–there are almost 20,000
Iraqi refugees and (as of this moment) 11,000 Syrians in Sweden fleeing
those countries?
As we have said many times,
the grumbling that takes place on the part of these white nationalist
types is not rooted in their real desire to see things turn around, for
if it were, they would concentrate their efforts to bring an end to the
wars that are the cause of the immigration problems in the first place.
"Les juifs n'ont rien à craindre du FN, bien au contraire!" dit-elle dans un communiqué officiel à la télé, suite à l'annulation de son entrevue sur les ondes de Radio J.
"Prasquier’s fears are even more profound: “The circle of her voters is liable to be joined byJews who are disappointed by Sarkozy, whobear a grudge against him for intervening in the peace process and for the pressures he is applying to Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu,” he says. Actually, Le Pen has already managed to forge ties with the Kahanistsin France, members of the Jewish Defense League, who consider the leaders of the community “traitors who deserve to die.”"
Anthony James Gregor - National Socialism and race
This serious look at the racial policies of the 3rd Reich explains how
the vague ideas of Adolf Hitler in the early years of his political
struggle developed in the 1930s into an exaggerated obsession with
Nordicism. This occured quite separately and with the disapproval of
many of the National Socialist leaders. By the late1930s a far more
rational view became official policy. The entire history of these
developments are explained by Dr Gregor.
What is important about this work is that it refutes the silly media and
propaganda allegations by the court historians and demolishes all the
lurid tales of "Blond beasts" and "Master races".
Over 100 footnotes are provided giving references and sources.