Le néoconservateur juif Carl Gershman
Le NED sert des intérêts variés: elle a aussi bien servi les néoconservateurs que le grand prédateur international George Soros.
NED, ADL and the Middle East Uprisings
Carl Gershman, longtime president of the National Endowment for Democracy, worked in the research department of the Anti-Defamation League of B’nai B’rith during the second half of 1968. “Research,” as the 1993 San Francisco case revealed, can be a convenient euphemism for the ADL’s spying on Israel’s perceived enemies.
Speaking at the ADL’s 2004 Rome conference on “Anti-Semitism – A Threat to Democracy,” Gershman revealed a pro-Israeli motivation behind his promotion of “democratic reform” in the Middle East. “Whatever their differences,” said NED’s president, “the Baathists and Islamists share a visceral hatred of liberal values that finds its most potent expression in the vilification of Israel and the Jewish people.”
Pro-democracy activists in the Middle East who have been “quietly nurtured” by NED would be well advised to do a little more research themselves on who is supporting their uprisings, and why. And those who support them in the hope that they might pose a threat to Israeli hegemony should ask themselves why ardent Zionists like Carl Gershman have worked long and hard to promote “democracy” in the region.
Speaking at the ADL’s 2004 Rome conference on “Anti-Semitism – A Threat to Democracy,” Gershman revealed a pro-Israeli motivation behind his promotion of “democratic reform” in the Middle East. “Whatever their differences,” said NED’s president, “the Baathists and Islamists share a visceral hatred of liberal values that finds its most potent expression in the vilification of Israel and the Jewish people.”
Pro-democracy activists in the Middle East who have been “quietly nurtured” by NED would be well advised to do a little more research themselves on who is supporting their uprisings, and why. And those who support them in the hope that they might pose a threat to Israeli hegemony should ask themselves why ardent Zionists like Carl Gershman have worked long and hard to promote “democracy” in the region.
COMMENTAIRE: Cette connexion entre la NED et l'ADL n'est pas sans rappeler le cas du propagandiste sioniste canadien ERIC DUHAIME.
Rizoli: ADL the 'bully on the block'
VIDEO - The Book of Joshua (Muravchic @9:55) Prophetic on Arab Democracy
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.”
VIDEO - CyberDissidents: A heartwarming tale of a group of right-wing Zionists devoted to Arab and Iranian freedom…
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 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”
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:
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.
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?
Longtemps avant la déclaration de Wesley Clark (qui rapportait des propos d'autrui), Ehud Barak s'exprime, le jour même du 11 septembre, à la BBC (accompagné de Richard Perle et Frank Gaffney):
VIDEO - "Rogue countries Iraq and Iran"... "North Korea, Iraq, Iran, maybe Gaddhafi, and maybe one more..." (@9:00)
Le mouvement juif Néo-conservateur et la guerre en Irak
Les fauteurs de guerres
Non-ingérence / non-interventionnisme
Les fauteurs de guerres
Non-ingérence / non-interventionnisme
Ahmadinejad: U.S. plotting to sow divisions among Arab states and save Israel
"Les révolutions arabes ne sont que des coups d’Etat militaires masqués"
The Jewish power-providers of the Arab Spring revolts
Facebook's Mark Zuckerberg tops 'The Jerusalem Post's' list of the 50 most influential Jews in the world, 2011.
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.
VIDEO - Madsen : Les réseaux sociaux ont des liens avec la CIA (vidéo)
U.S. secretly backed Syrian opposition groups, cables released by WikiLeaks show
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.
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.]
Revealed: US spy operation that manipulates social media
The agents of Washington and Britain within Libya’s opposition leadership
Libyan Rebels Say US, Egyptian Special Forces Training Them
“Our Man in Tripoli”: US-NATO Sponsored Islamic Terrorists Integrate Libya’s Pro-Democracy Opposition
Al Qaeda: Pawns of CIA Insurrection from Libya to Yemen
Libya Rebel Gen: NATO Not Attacking Enough
Les services secrets canadiens et les combattants de la "liberté" en Libye
Une démocratie de plus au secours des rebelles en Libye
VIDEO - Libya Rebels had NATO Weapons from Day 1
The Arab Revolution’s Zionist Friends
Libya Names New Central Bank Governor (banque centrale fondée par les rebelles)
Libyan Rebels Have Already Established A New Central Bank Of Libya
Regime Change Libya: Privatization of their Central Bank and the Theft of their Nationalized Oil Profits
L'objectif, en Libye, est-ce le pétrole ou le système bancaire ? par Ellen Brown
Libya Rebels Build Parallel State
Et si les bons de Benghazi n’étaient pas aussi bons qu’on le dit ?
Les rebelles Libyens sont-ils 100% casher?
Quand le chef des rebelles libyens oeuvrait pour Kadhafi
La Cia soutenait déjà les insurgés libyens avant le vote de la résolution 1973
VIDEO - Libya Rebels Behead, Mutilate Gaddafi Troops Who Surrendered
VIDEO - Libye - Ingérence totale par soutien financier et logistique des rebelles par l'empire - 1/2 - 2/2
The CIA is behind the Rebellion: The Euro-American Attack on Libya
Must Read–Arab Spring and The Israeli Factor
Mounting Evidence of CIA Ties to Libyan Rebels
American Media Silent on CIA Ties to Libya Rebel Commander
A CIA commander for the Libyan rebels
The CIA’s Libya Rebels: The Same Terrorists who Killed US, NATO Troops in Iraq
In the Theater of the Absurd: US-NATO Support "Al Qaeda in Libya"
Former Israeli intelligence chief: Arab spring is “good for Israel”
Neocons Return to War Debate With a Vengeance
Experts Fear Israeli Design to Balkanise Arab States
Pro-Israeli warmongers press GOP to back “America’s fifth war of Muslim liberation”
[Jewish Neocons] Kristol, Abrams, Kagan letter presses House GOP to back Libya mission
American Free Press Was Right: U.S. Funding Arab Uprisings
By Michael Collins Piper
By Michael Collins Piper
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:
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.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.
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.
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.
Libya: The Zionist Dragon and The Drums of War
(...)
 |
| The Zionist-founded, Zionist-controlled NED is as subversive as the CIA. |
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. |
(read the rest...)
MidEast Democracy: Israel’s Diamond in the Rough
“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
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.
Download Here****Dr. Stephen Sniegoski: The Sanitized Version of Neoconservatism****
What these books still conceal, however, is the fact that the neocons are motivated by their Jewish ethnicity and the interests of the state of Israel. Instead the neocons are made to appear as an ideological group loyal solely to what they believe is good for the US. Consequently, this approach, despite allowing for some elements of truth, distorts the overall picture in a serious way.
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.
Voir aussi:
Farrakhan: Jews are pushing the US into war
La faceboukanisation de la jeunesse arabe: La Syrie en marche pour la partition
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.
Sur ce blog:
Le gouffre à la place du coeur: Bernard Henri Lévy
Purim 2011 (19-20 mars) et l'invasion atlanto-sioniste de la Libye
Flashback: Khadafi dénonce...
McCain et Lieberman: "bombardez la Libye"
"Révolutions" arabes? Ou balkanisation et remodelage du Moyen-Orient par les sionistes?
La Syrie: prochaine cible des sionistes?
Un officiel égyptien accuse Israël d'avoir fomenté le chaos en Égypte
La guerre en Irak était une célébration de Purim
Plus d'infos sur l'ADL:
L'ADL derrière le Patriot Act
Sur les manigances de l'ADL contre le nationalisme:
Judas Goats -- The Enemy Within: The Shocking Story of the Infiltration and Subversion of the American Nationalist Movement, by Michel Collins Piper
