Thursday, May 30, 2013

NY Times: Sans ennemi extérieur à combattre, Israël est voué à l'éclatement

C'est l'admission d'un journaliste juif influent, Ethan Bronner, dans son commentaire sur Israël face au chaos du dit "printemps arabe". Bronner est lauréat d'un Pulitzer pour ses enquêtes sur les liens entre Al-Qaïda et le 11 septembre (rires!). Il était responsable jusqu'à tout récemment du bureau de Jérusalem du New York Times, avant de passer "tout naturellement" (ou plutôt parce que son biais sioniste et surtout son fils militaire israélien lui valaient de graves critiques) aux affaires légales du même journal juif (dont l'éditeur actuel est Arthur Ochs Sulzberger Jr., un membre de la famille qui contrôle le journal depuis 1896)...

Au-delà de la concrétisation ou de l'échec potentiel du projet du Grand Israël, l'essentiel est qu'il s'agit pour eux de générer sans cesse de la guerre et du conflit. Sans ennemi extérieur à combattre, les Israéliens se souviennent à quel point ils se haïssent les uns les autres. Les contradictions et les lignes de fracture sociale sont à ce point profondes que les tendances à l'éclatement l'emportent et ils se font la guerre entre eux. L'ampleur de cette guerre interne peut être maintenue à un certain niveau minimal tant et aussi longtemps qu'est artificiellement entretenue la peur et la haine du monde extérieur. C'est seulement ainsi qu'une telle société au bord de l'éclatement peut tenir ensemble dans une "paix" relative.  La cohésion (artificielle), voire la survie-même de la société israélienne dépend du maintien d'un état de conflit permanent. C'est leur seule façon d'oublier les conflits internes qui les déchirent.

News Analysis
What Mideast Crisis? Israelis Have Moved On

Published: May 25, 2013
The New York Times

FOR years, conventional wisdom has held that as long as Israel faces the external challenge of Arab — especially Palestinian — hostility it will never come to terms with its internal divisions. The left has sometimes used it as an argument: we must make peace with the Palestinians so that we can set our house in order — write a constitution, figure out the public role of religion. Others have viewed the threat as almost a silver lining keeping the place together: differences among Israeli Jews (religious or secular, Ashkenazic or Sephardic) are so profound, the argument goes, that if the society ever manages to turn its attention inward, it might tear itself apart. (...)

Cette philosophie a un nom: le "sionisme de guerre" (War Zionism)!

`Catastrophic Zionism':
How Turmoil Benefits Israel
By Michael Collins Piper

(...) The theme of “catastrophic Zionism,” sometimes called “war Zionism,” suggests that Israel — as a state — relies on crisis and the potential of war with its neighbors as a foundation of its very existence

This has actually been the belief of many hard-line “right wing” elements going back to the earliest days of Israel.  In short, there are many Zionists who believe such crisis is vital — fundamental — to Israel’s survival. 

And for this reason, the believers in “catastrophic Zionism” will never lend their support to any policy, domestic or international, that could lead to a final solution of the conflict between Israel and its Arab and Muslim neighbors. 

In actual fact, this notion — that peace could be dangerous to the survival of Israel — is a governing concept in the minds of many Israelis and their supporters worldwide. #/////

• Big Media confirms what AFP said more than two years ago
By Michael Collins Piper
July 26, 2013   AFP
Catastrophic Zionism
The current crisis in Egypt recalls a warning put forth by AMERICAN FREE PRESS more than two years ago. On February 14, 2011, AFP suggested that Israel benefited from (and was most likely instigating) the chaos raging as a consequence of the so-called Arab spring tearing apart its neighbors—including,most particularly, the uprising in Egypt, which led to the rise of the new government that was just recently toppled by the military. At the time, critics accused AFP of promulgating outlandish “conspiracy theories.”

However, no less than David Ignatius—the influential veteran foreign affairs correspondent for The Washington Post—has now confirmed the critical essence of what AFP reported.

For the record, here is what AFP told its readers more than two years ago, in reviewing the events in Egypt and describing the little-known Israeli strategic policy known as “catastrophic Zionism”:

While most rational people would assume Israel would prefer to have neighboring states that are stable, successful participants in the region, this is not necessarily the case.

In fact, a carefully crafted “think piece” entitled “A Strategy for Israel in the 1980s,” featured in the February 1982 edition of the World Zionist Organization’s Jerusalem-based publication Kivunim: A Journal for Judaism and Zionism, candidly put forth an Israeli strategy to wreak havoc in the Arab world, dividing the Arab states from within.

The program—which amounted to “balkanizing” the various Arab republics, splitting them into religious enclaves in which, for example, Shiite Muslims or otherwise Sunni Muslims would predominate—was an agenda that Israeli dissident Israel Shahak said, quite simply, was designed “to make an imperial Israel into a world power,” by disrupting the Arab states and thereby setting the stage for Israeli dominance in the Mideast.

The formula was founded on the idea of creating chaos among Israel’s Arab neighbors, hardly a policy any decent, well-meaning neighbor could be credited for fostering.

In fact, the current-day political and religious divisions and devastation in Iraq—the consequence of the American invasion of Iraq demanded by the pro-Israel lobby in Washington—mirrors precisely what the Zionist position paper laid forth as the ideal state of affairs for Iraq, from an Israeli point of view, that is.

But where does Egypt fit into all of this? Reflecting on the Zionist strategy paper, Ralph Schoenman—an eminent American Jewish critic of Zionism—writing in 1988 in his book, The Hidden History of Zionism, pointedly noted the paper’s intent of “double-crossing Mubarak” and emphasized that the Yinon paper hoped for “the downfall and dissolution of Egypt,” despite the 1979 Camp David peace agreement.

This is geopolitics at its best—or worst—and demonstrates the kind of gambles Israel has historically been willing to take.

Such gamesmanship by Israel is part of a philosophy known as “catastrophic Zionism,” a termused almost exclusively by Israeli and Jewish writers.

The theme of “catastrophic Zionism,” sometimes called “war Zionism,” suggests that Israel—as a state—relies on crisis and the potential of war with its neighbors as a foundation of its very existence. This has actually been the belief of many hard-line “right wing” elements going back to the earliest days of Israel.

In short, there are many Zionists who believe such crisis is vital—fundamental—to Israel’s survival.

And for this reason, the believers in “catastrophic Zionism” will never lend their support to any policy, domestic or international, that could lead to a final solution of the conflict between Israel and its Arab and Muslim neighbors.

In actual fact, this notion—that peace could be dangerous to the survival of Israel—is a governing concept in the minds of many Israelis and their supporters worldwide.

Hard Assets Alliance

Now Ignatius has underscored AFP’s controversial assertions. Writing in the Post on April 26, Ignatius described what he called the “upbeat and introspective mood” in Israel—despite the fact the Middle East is in turmoil—and explained the reason for this positive worldview:

Israelis are realizing that, however much the upheaval threatens the established Arab order, it doesn’t necessarily hurt them. Israelis have been predicting for decades that the arbitrary borders set by the 1916 Sykes-Picot accord would ultimately dissolve and the Ottoman ethnic “vilayets” (or provinces) would return. Now, to some Israeli analysts, this Arab crackup seems to be happening, and what’s not to like?

The paradox of the Arab revolutions is that, though they have created instability on Israel’s borders, they have also reduced the conventional military threat. Israel’s enemies are tearing each other apart: Egyptians are squabbling internally as the economy sinks; Syrians are battling each other in a bloody civil war; Sunni and Shiite extremists are waging a war of attrition across the region.

On top of this, Ignatius noted, all of this turmoil positions Israel even more strategically if and when it finally decides to launch a military strike against Iran.

And although the Post’s foreign policy guru didn’t mention it, Ignatius has known for at least 30 years of this unusual and little-noted Israeli agenda for wrecking its neighbors from within.

As far back as December 8, 1982, when Ignatius was a young staff writer for The Wall Street Journal (WSJ), Ignatius wrote an article for the WSJ describing the Israeli plan for balkanizing the Arab world (referenced in AFP’s report).

Describing the scheme as “a recipe for chaos,” Ignatius’s article acknowledged that the Israeli writer Oded Yinon argued that “Israel should encourage the dissolution of Egypt, Lebanon, Syria, Jordan, Iraq, Saudi Arabia and the other Persian Gulf nations into a series of weak, ethnic ministates, noting that Yinon said the Arab world was like “a temporary house of cards, put together by foreigners (France and Britain in the 1920s),” and that because of the dissent within those nations, this gave Israel “far-reaching opportunities” to undermine its Arab neighbors.

Although Ignatius asserted, at the time, that the article was not politically significant, other than for the outrage that it sparked in the Arab world, virtually everything theWorld Zionist Organization journal Kivunim advocated as an Israeli strategy toward the Arab world has since come to pass.

The fact that Israel—in collaboration with the United States, Britain and other NATO powers—has played a part in stirring up and financing the assorted “rebel forces” throughout the Arab world may thus be no coincidence.
Michael Collins Piper is an author, journalist, lecturer and radio show host. He has spoken in Russia, Malaysia, Iran, Abu Dhabi, Japan, Canada and the U.S.

Guerres impérialistes: Seule la guerre permanente fait survivre Israël…
Un analyste politique dit que le régime israélien a besoin de déclencher des guerres à travers le monde, spécifiquement au Moyen-Orient, s’il veut assurer sa survie et demeurer le récepteur principal de l’aide financière et militaire américaine, rapporte Press TV.

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

'A New York Times reporter in Israel is invariably called an anti-Semite or self-hating Jew'

Jack Straw dénonce « l’argent corrupteur des juifs » et « l’Allemagne pro-israélienne » L’ancien ministre britannique des Affaires étrangères et député travailliste Jack Straw, n’a pas fait dans la dentelle lors d’un débat au parlement britannique la semaine dernière.Selon Straw, « l’argent des juifs est un obstacle à la paix » : « l’AIPAC, par exemple, contrôle et détourne la politique américaine de la région. »

Pour le député britannique Jack Straw, « l’argent juif est un obstacle à la paix »

L'argent juif est le principal obstacle à la paix au Proche-Orient (Jack Straw)

Grande Bretagne ; Jack Straw, les juifs et l'argent

‘Unlimited’ funds to AIPAC block ME peace: Jack Straw

Former UK foreign secretary: AIPAC is the main barrier to peace
Jack Straw tells conference Germany is obsessed with defending Israel; outlines AIPAC's attempt to divert American policy.

Former British Foreign secretary: Jewish money prevents peace

'Ex-U.K. FM: Jewish money biggest obstacle to Mideast peace': 'Unlimited' funds available to U.S. Jewish groups are controlling American Mideast policy, Jack Straw reportedly states in British parliament debate.

Wikipedia - Warfare in Judaism
VIDEO - Professor Reuven Firestone: Part 1 aller direct @7:00
Sensitive to Republican mistrust of Obama’s foreign policy, Dani Dayan
tells House leaders that the peace process would harm US interests
Head of the Yesha Council Dani Dayan (photo credit: Yonatan Sindel/Flash90)
Head of the Yesha Council Dani Dayan (photo credit: Yonatan Sindel/Flash90)
JTAIsraeli settler leader Dani Dayan has made it his mission over the years to warn members of Congress, particularly Republicans, of the perils of Israeli-Palestinian peace talks.
Dayan has been a regular visitor to Washington, his trips often coinciding with developments in the peace process. During the Annapolis talks in 2007-08, Dayan would watch Israeli officials as they met with the media in the lobby of the venerable Mayflower Hotel, just blocks from the White House, and then move in to offer his own spin.
In June, Dayan met with GOP House leaders in a meeting organized with help from the Zionist Organization of America. The meeting was followed by a Washington Jewish Week report that another settler leader, Gershon Mesika, met with 20 Congress members just days before the relaunch of peace talks between Israelis and Palestinians.
The intensive cultivation of relationships on Capitol Hill appears to be bearing fruit.
Within days of talks kicking off in Washington last week, Rep. Matt Salmon (R-Ariz.), a freshman who attended the June meeting with Dayan, drafted a letter asking the US attorney general to hinder the release of Palestinian prisoners — a move approved by Israel to help kick-start negotiations.
Dayan didn’t ask Salmon to write the letter. That request was made by the Endowment for Middle East Truth, a conservative lobby funded in part by gaming billionaire Sheldon Adelson.
But the congressional measures now being undertaken to impact the trajectory of peace talks have their roots in the warm relations that settlers and their American friends have forged in Congress over the past two decades.
“It was important to meet with the Yesha people,” a GOP official said of the June meeting, using the Hebrew acronym for the settlers’ council, “to find out who the settlers are, what they feel obstacles to peace are, what Judea and Samaria means from a historical perspective.”
In addition to Salmon’s letter, a perennial effort to tighten a 1995 law requiring the United States to move its embassy to Jerusalem reappeared just as talks resumed. The strengthened law would remove a presidential waiver that has enabled successive presidents to delay the move on the grounds of national security.
Members of Congress behind both initiatives deny that the measures — neither in timing nor in substance — are intended to scuttle the peace talks. On the contrary, the lawmakers say they are intended to improve the chances of success for the talks by strengthening Israel’s bargaining position and making American parameters clear to the Palestinians.
“There will never be clear sailing as long as there are people who do not recognize Israel as a Jewish nation,” said Rep. Doug Lamborn (R-Colo.), one of the sponsors of the new Jerusalem bill.
But the settler leaders and the right-wing pro-Israel groups that support them are more blunt about their objectives.
“I told the congresspersons that the strategic choice that John Kerry made to go on with the conventional peace process to try to renew negotiations … will have catastrophic consequences for the American national interests,” Dayan said. “Because when he fails — and he will fail — the fact that the secretary of state of the United States failed will be noticed very clearly in Tehran and in Damascus and in Moscow and in Pyongyang.”
Daniel Mandel, the director of ZOA’s Center for Middle East Policy, said his group was gearing up to push back against talks it believes are doomed because the Palestinians remain unwilling to accept Israel’s existence as a Jewish state.
“Our strategy now that negotiations have resumed is to unblinkingly focus on the unregenerative nature of Abbas’ Palestinian Authority,” Mandel said, referring to Mahmoud Abbas, the P.A. president.
Efforts to exert congressional pressure to affect the outcome of peace talks are not new.
Following the launch of the Oslo peace process in the early 1990s, right-wing Israelis and their allies helped pass a congressional bill that would move the American embassy from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem — a move that would buttress Israeli claims to the city whose ultimate fate was to be determined by Israelis and Palestinians.
A separate bill sought to prevent US troops from patrolling the Golan Heights to help cement a peace deal with Syria. Yitzhak Rabin, then the Israeli prime minister, expressed his frustration at both moves.
Back then, the right-wingers had mainstream allies; the American Israel Public Affairs Committee lobbied for the Jerusalem law. AIPAC did not respond to requests for comment on the new Jerusalem bill, which is backed by the ZOA.
Republican House officials say their members are deeply skeptical about the renewed talks, which were launched after an intensive round of shuttle diplomacy by Kerry. Sensitive to Republican mistrust of President Obama’s foreign policy agenda, Dayan said he attempted to persuade House leaders that the peace process would harm US interests.
“I would like Congress to explain to the State Department that this is a morally improper way to conduct diplomacy,” Dayan in an interview this week.
Sarah Stern, the director of the Endowment for Middle East Truth, said her primary concern was for the families of those killed by the released prisoners, but she acknowledged there was a dividend in alerting Americans to the dangers of the peace process.
“I can’t petition the Israeli government as an American citizen, I can only petition our officials,” Stern said. “But as a sidebar, it’s painful to see Israel has to go through so much just to get the Palestinians to sit down, and it’s a very sad thing that Israel has been subject to so much pressure by Kerry.”

Israel Settlements Get Go-Ahead On Eve Of Palestine Peace Talks

Settlements will continue to determine Israel's future

Israel to start building nearly 1,200 new units in West Bank and East Jerusalem

VIDEO - “Arab Spring”: Sheik Imram Hosein In 2003 – Don’t Be Fooled By Plans For A “Greater Israel”

Palestinian Foreign Ministry: Israeli ministers are the real terrorists

Israeli deputy minister: Demand for settlement freeze is anti-Semitic

Rabbinical decree to continue the conflict

Labor pans Netanyahu speech: PM leaves no hope for peace

Israeli PM defends Jewish settlements in hawkish speech

Yacimovich: PM trying to paralyze talks, not reach an agreement.

Wiesenthal Center blasts ‘flawed’ Dutch Mideast report

Binyamin Netanyahu: occupation is not cause of conflict

FREE EBOOK: The Holocaust Is Over ; We Must Rise From its Ashes
Avraham Burg
Palgrave Macmillan, December 2009
ISBN : 978-0-230-61897-8, ISBN10 : 0-230-61897-9,
6 1/8 x 9 1/4 inches, 272 p.
“Modern-day Israel, and the Jewish community, are strongly influenced by the memory and horrors of Hitler and the Holocaust. Burg argues that the Jewish nation has been traumatized and has lost the ability to trust itself, its neighbors or the world around it. He shows that this is one of the causes for the growing nationalism and violence that are plaguing Israeli society and reverberating through Jewish communities worldwide. Burg uses his own family history—his parents were Holocaust survivors—to inform his innovative views on what the Jewish people need to do to move on and eventually live in peace with their Arab neighbors and feel comfortable in the world at large. (...)”

“This is an important book by a very courageous man. The shadow of the Shoah and its abusive application to the contemporary Middle East have been a catastrophe for Jews, Israelis and Arabs alike. In Burg's view Israel must move beyond Hitler's poisoned legacy. If they cannot or will not do this, the Middle East will never see peace and Israel has no future.” 
-- Tony Judt, bestselling author of Postwar: A History of Europe Since 1945 and Professor at New York University

“An Israeli-born son of Holocaust survivors, Burg addresses a heartfelt plea to his countrymen: remember the past, but do not be its slaves; pathology is neither patriotism nor statescraft.  A compelling and eloquent cri de coeur from a veteran of Israel's wars and politics.” 
-- Howard M. Sachar, bestselling author of A History of the Jews in the Modern World and A History of Israel

"Burg takes a blunt, loving, painful and desperately important look at the state of the Jewish soul today. Anyone who cares about the future of the Middle East and the fate of victimized peoples needs to read this book and think hard." 
-- J.J. Goldberg, author of Jewish Power: Inside the American Jewish Establishment and Editorial Director of The Forward
“This fascinating and thought-provoking book should be read by every person who cares about Israel. Burg's central theme is that Israeli leaders use the memory of the Holocaust in ways that are warping the country's soul, creating unnecessary fear, and making it impossible to achieve peace with the Palestinians.” 
-- John J. Mearsheimer, bestselling author of The Israel Lobby and US Foreign Policy and Professor of Political Science at the University of Chicago 

"[An] assured and provocative polemic. . . . [A] lecture with much wisdom . . . worthy of global consideration."
-- Kirkus Reviews
“An honest reflection of a tormented man searching for the universal values in Judaism.” 
-- Le Figaro

“In this book of memories and reflections, the former Knesset Speaker delivers his disquieting findings about Israel that 'became a Kingdom without a prophesy.'... Foremost a book of hope from a man who wants to find ways to return Judaism to its universal calling.”  
--Le Monde

“Short of being Prime Minister, Burg could not be higher in the Zionist establishment.” 
David Remnick, The New Yorker
"Mr. Burg...wrote a powerful book, an indictment of how Zionism and the Holocaust have been used."
--Globe and Mail
 "[A] compelling mix of polemic, personal memoir, homage to his parents and meditation on Judaism." 
--The Independent
"Avraham Burg has great faith in the creative power of argument. His book has already provoked much controversy and now that it has been translated is certain to provoke more. At a time when crass, catchpenny titles pour from the presses, it is that unusual thing: A new book that matters." 
-- Arab News

VIDEO - (2 PARTS) FORMER SPEAKER OF THE ISRAELI KNESSET AVRAHAM BURG: Former Speaker of the Israeli Parliament Avraham Burg on "The Holocaust Is Over: We Must Rise from its Ashes"
See also: On Israel and the Holocaust: We Don't Have a Monopoly on Suffering ; 'Jewish democracy an oxymoron' ; Des thèses racistes soutenues par des ministres israéliens

Bibi: the 1967 lines are ‘Auschwitz Borders’ By Frank Dimant CEO, B’nai Brith Canada
Once again, the United States is applying significant pressure on Israel to advance the Middle East peace process. Not satisfied with Israel’s freeing of over a hundred Palestinian terrorists with blood on their hands, Israel is called upon, once again, to accept the 1967 armistice lines, better known to informed Mideast observers as the “Auschwitz Lines”, as the basis for a starting point to the peace talks.
Ceux que le PDG de la B'nai Brith appelle "des observateurs informés", c-à-d ceux qui qualifient les vieilles frontières israéliennes de 1967 de "frontières d'Auschwitz", ce sont LES POLITICIENS ET ANALYSTES SIONISTES ISRAÉLIENS LES PLUS EXTÉMISTES! C'est connu dans la société israélienne que ceux qui tiennent ce discours en Israël ce sont les politiciens les plus à droite (incluant également plusieurs analystes qui se disent "de gauche" mais qui suivent quand même les idées radicales pro-colonisation normalisées par la droite).

Tourism minister tells Ynet that 'no gestures should be made prior to talks'; objects to discussing 1967 borders, dubbing them 'Auschwitz' borders.

Landau: 1967 lines are 'Auschwitz borders
Tourism Minister Uzi Landau called pre-1967 lines "Auschwitz borders" ahead of Sunday's cabinet meeting.
Landau's comments, quoting a well-known turn of phrase by former foreign minister Abba Eban from 1969, came after US Secretary of State John Kerry visited the region and called for a treaty based on pre-1967 lines with land swaps.

Lieberman: The Conflict with the Arabs Has No Solution
Former Foreign Minister MK Avigdor Lieberman calls for Israel to go into negotiations "without illusions."

(...) Lieberman noted that he has said many times that there is no solution to the conflict, at least not in the coming years. "What is possible and important to do is to manage the conflict," he wrote.
He said that Israel must not agree that the negotiations be conducted on the basis of the pre-1967 borders, reminding that the late former Minister Abba Eban “called them Auschwitz borders" due to the fact that they would guarantee Israel’s destruction. In addition, said Lieberman, it is important to make clear to the PA that "there will be no construction freeze. Not in Jerusalem and not in the Jewish communities in Judea and Samaria."

The Simon Wiesenthal Center commended President Obama's call for further democratization in the Arab world but expressed deep disappointment that he called for Israel's return to the pre-June 1967 borders.
"Auschwitz" Borders:  A term coined by Israel's Foreign Minister Abba Eban who warned that a return to pre-1967 Six Day War borders would be Auschwitz borders for Israel.

Minister Landau: Yes, They're Auschwitz Borders
Tourism Minister stands behind his statement opposing a return to pre-1967 lines.

Israeli Minister: A Palestinian State is not the Solution
The meeting with Tourism Minister Uzi Landau took place a day after he publicly quoted the well-known maxim of former Foreign Minister Abba Eban, "The '67 borders remind us of the borders of Auschwitz." These words were uttered by Landau at the beginning of a government meeting that took place on Sunday (May 26) and were widely quoted in the news broadcasts. (...)
Isn't the Holocaust comparison somewhat exaggerated? After all, the president proclaims the vision of two states, and allows us to understand that he and the prime minister are in agreement … (...) Former Foreign Minister Abba Eban used that expression in 1969. Dozens of years have passed since then …
"That doesn't make these borders less Auschwitz-like. Before '67, they didn't have Katyusha rockets and missiles to the extent owned today by Hezbollah in the north and Hamas in the south that constitute a strategic threat to Israel. One thing must be clear: A Palestinian state is not the solution."

Israel's Post-Traumatic Society
To Understand Israel, Understand the Holocaust
Given this state of affairs, one can certainly fathom the distrust that Israelis have in their surroundings. Their fear of a second attempt to exterminate them is certainly understandable, as is the term “Auschwitz borders,” coined by legendary Foreign Minister Abba Eban [1966–1974] in reference to a return to the 1967 borders. A nation which experienced that less than a hundred years ago will have a hard time shutting themselves up in a country that is just nine miles wide, especially given the fact that there are hundreds of millions of Muslims stirring behind those borders, and that some of those Muslims refer to the Jews as “the descendants of apes and pigs,” call openly for jihad and refuse to come to terms with the existence of a Jewish entity in the historic land of Israel.

Monday, May 27, 2013

Des sympathies et ambitions nationalistes de Joseph P. Kennedy

Vous avez peut-être entendu parler du "nationalisme international"... Dit autrement: "Nationalistes de tous les pays unissez vous!"

C'est la ligne que suivent les auteurs populistes et nationalistes Willis Carto et Michael Collins Piper depuis des décennies. C'est à lire dans l'intro du livre The Judas Goats (sur l'infiltration ennemie dans le camp nationaliste).  Carto a été fortement inspiré par l' "intellectuel fasciste" Lawrence Dennis (accusé d'être en partie non-blanc lors de son procès pour sédition*), DeWest Hooker (magnat des médias anti-juif, connecté à des organisations nazies américaines), François Genoud (qui finança l'OLP et des premières organisations révisionnistes), et Francis Parker Yockey (malgré certains désaccords). Hooker et Carto étaient liés d'amitié avec Genoud et Dennis.

C'est Dennis lui-même qui a organisé la rencontre entre Hooker et Joseph Patrick Kennedy, le patriarche du clan Kennedy, au cours de laquelle Hooker lui fit part de son projet de mise sur pied un réseau médiatique anti-juive. Joseph refusa de s'impliquer, prétextant qu'il prévoyait plutôt, dans un premier temps, s'allier aux juifs (qu'il considérait comme les vainqueurs des guerres mondiales) pour faire élire ses fils à la présidence. Ensuite seulement, avec ses fils à la présidence, il pourrait mettre le pouvoir juif hors circuit. Kennedy ordonna donc à Hooker de répandre le slogan dans les milieux nazis américains: "Nazis for Nixon, Kikes for Kennedy!" afin d'assurer l'appui des juifs dans la course de John F. à la présidence. (Sources: The Confessions of an Anti-Semite et Final Judgment)

* Lors de ce procès pour sédition qui visa également d'autres patriotes américains tels que Elizabeth Dilling et Paquita de Shishmareff (alias L. Fry), des preuves ont été amenées devant le tribunal pour tenter de démontrer que Dennis n'était pas un blanc mais en partie noir et qu'il n'était en fin de compte qu'un "agent nazi opérant aux États-Unis". Pour convaincre le juge, l'accusation a documenté le fait que les nazis tentaient, à cette époque, d'informer la population noire (afro-américaine) et latino afin de les mettre en garde contre le péril juif.

Michael Collins Piper - Who Really Won WWII and the Inside Story of the Kennedy Dynasty

Michael Collins Piper, The Caiaphas Complex, 2012:

DeWest Hooker:
Portrait of a Radical

DeWest Hooker
4,202 words
A colorful yet enigmatic figure in the postwar American racialist movement was the well-to-do anti-Jewish businessman DeWest “West” Hooker (1918–1999). His portrait emerges primarily through self-descriptions he provided to leading white activists (the most notable of whom was George Lincoln Rockwell) over a period of forty years. Read more …
Posted in North American New Right | Also tagged , , , , , , , , , , | Comments closed


Lawrence Dennis & a “Frontier Thesis” for American Capitalism

15,917 words
lawrence_dennis_number_oneEditor’s Note:
Lawrence Dennis (December 25, 1893–August 20, 1977) was one of America’s most original Right-wing critics of liberalism, capitalism, imperialism, and the Cold War. Interestingly enough, he was part black, a fact that was known to his many Right-wing admirers. In commemoration of Dennis’ birthday, and as a Christmas gift to our readers, we are reprinting Keith Stimely’s excellent introduction to his life and ideas.     Read more …

Posted in North American New Right | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | 1 Response

Du même auteur, un extrait de Final Judgment (2007):

Chapter Four 

No Love Lost: 

JFK, Meyer Lansky,

the Mafia and the Israeli Lobby

There was a long history of bitter enmity between John F. Kennedy and his powerful father Ambassador Joseph P. Kennedy and organized crime boss Meyer Lansky, stemming in part from the senior Kennedy's deals with the underworld. This, however, did not stop the Kennedy family from cutting deals with the crime syndicate when it came to winning elections. The Kennedy family's alleged anti-Semitism didn't do anything to improve JFK's relations with Israel and its American lobby either. Kennedy's intervention in the issue of Algerian independence from France also drew sharp criticism from the Israeli lobby as well. Yet, when John F. Kennedy sought the presidency, he was willing to cut deals with the Israeli lobby—for a price. By the end of his presidency, however, Kennedy had reneged on his deals, not only with Israel's Godfather, Meyer Lansky, and his henchmen in the Mafia, but also with the Israeli lobby. 

  John F. Kennedy was very much a product of his father's upbringing— much to the dismay, it might be said, of many of even JFK's most devout disciples. They would, frankly, prefer to forget much of the recorded history of the Kennedy family and present JFK as something just short of being a saint.
  That President John F. Kennedy was the son of Ambassador Joseph P. Kennedy long perceived to be, at the very least, neutral to the ambitions of Nazi Germany—and, at the worst, an anti-Semite and even an admirer of Adolf Hitler—has been a lot for Kennedy's admirers to swallow.
  Ambassador Kennedy, of course, fought U.S. entry into World War II. Several accounts of the period suggest that Kennedy himself returned from Britain, where he served as American ambassador, with the intent of launching a major campaign against President Roosevelt's war plans.
  However, after a meeting at the White House between the ambassador and the president, Kennedy backed off. What happened during that meeting is ripe for speculation.


  What is interesting to note (and definitely little known) is that at the same time Ambassador Kennedy was fighting against American involvement in what became the Second World War, his sons Joe, Jr. and John were also promoting the same agenda.
   Joe, Jr., as a student at Harvard, served on the Harvard Committee Against Military Intervention in Europe, described as "a reactionary group that petitioned influential government officials and held rallies opposing American entry in the European war effort."(37)
  More significantly, however, it appears that JFK himself was under steady surveillance by J. Edgar Hoover's FBI because of his anti-war activities. JFK was accused by the FBI of voicing "anti-British and defeatist sentiments and blaming Winston Churchill for getting the United States into the war . . . It also appears," charged the FBI, "that Kennedy had prepared for his father at least one of the speeches which his father had made, or was intending to make, in answer to criticism of his alleged appeasement policies . . . In addition Jack Kennedy stated that in his opinion England was through, and his father's greatest mistake was not talking enough, that he stopped talking too soon."(38)
  Young Jack Kennedy, as a Harvard student, was more than neutral toward Hitler, it seems. Having visited Mussolini's Italy, Stalin's Russia and Hitler's Germany, JFK recorded in his diary, according toTime magazine, that he had come "to the decision that Facism [sic] is the thing for Germany and Italy, Communism for Russia and Democracy for America and England."(39) Youthful musings, but interesting, to say the least.


  After the war was underway, JFK's father, Ambassador Kennedy, actively considered involvement in a scheme to cut the war short—in opposition to President Roosevelt.
  Kennedy's biographer, Richard Whalen, has written of a secret meeting between Kennedy and a prominent critic of the Roosevelt administration, the controversial publicist, Lawrence Dennis. Often described (inaccurately) as "America's leading fascist," Dennis was a former diplomat himself and one of the early leaders in the effort to block American intervention in what evolved into World War II. Consequently, he and Kennedy had much in common. Kennedy's biographer outlined the circumstances of that secret meeting—a meeting which says much about Kennedy's line of thinking:
  "In October 1943, Lawrence Dennis received a telephone call from his friend, Paul Palmer, then a senior editor ofThe Reader's Digest. Before the war, Dennis had contributed to theDigest, but the author of The Coming American Fascism since had become too controversial for his byline to appear in the nation's largest magazine. Now he received a $500-a-month retainer as an editorial consultant.
  "One of his recent efforts had been a memorandum sharply critical of unconditional surrender and the rumored plans to break up Germany. Palmer invited Dennis to lunch in his suite in Manhattan's St. Regis Hotel, saying he would meet someone there who was thinking along similar lines.
 "It turned out to be Joe Kennedy. Over lunch, Kennedy said he had been seeing Archbishop Spellman almost daily. He said the Archbishop had returned from Rome with word that Hitler's generals might attempt to overthrow him if they were offered terms less hopeless than unconditional surrender.
  "Kennedy grew emotional and castigated Roosevelt. He talked of his two sons in the service, and declared that the war could be ended within two weeks if the German generals were given encouragement.
  "Of course, no Church official could speak out against the folly of Roosevelt's policy, but Kennedy could, and this had been Palmer's purpose in arranging the luncheon. The editor asked whether the former Ambassador would write, or at least sign, an article condemning unconditional surrender. The impact of such an article, given Kennedy's former standing in the administration, could be enormous. But he did not accept the invitation and the war being fought by his sons and so many other young men raged on.”(40)
  Ambassador Kennedy no doubt remembered this meeting for the rest of his days. He was very bitter about the war and particularly bitter at Franklin D. Roosevelt.  Kennedy once allegedly referred to FDR as "that crippled son of a bitch that killed my son Joe."  (Joe Kennedy, Jr., of course, being the ambassador's eldest son. It was Joe, Jr.'s death that ultimately laid the groundwork for the second son, John, to be groomed for the presidency in his older brother's place.)


  However, the senior Kennedy's views most definitely did not change as time went by. But as the retired ambassador grew older, he became more pragmatic. This was evidenced in a meeting—in the mid-1950's—between Kennedy and an associate of Lawrence Dennis—a New York-based entertainment executive named DeWest Hooker.
  In fact, as we shall see, it may have been efforts by Hooker, as a consequence of his meeting with Joe Kennedy, that helped John F. Kennedy win his narrow victory in the 1960 presidential election.
  Mr. Hooker hoped to interest Joe Kennedy in a business venture which Hooker believed might be right up the ambassador's alley. Hooker wanted to establish an independent television network, and he felt that Kennedy, himself a veteran movie mogul, might be interested in backing the enterprise. Hooker's memory of that meeting is quite interesting, particularly in the context of the thesis presented in these pages. To appreciate just precisely where Hooker was coming from, however, it is appropriate to review Hooker's remarkable background.


  Born to wealth and privilege and a descendent of one of the signers of the Declaration of Independence, Hooker had a varied career. Not only did he act on the Broadway stage, but he also modeled in cigarette advertisements. Hooker also served for a period as a talent agent with the powerful firm MCA and was, at a time during the 1950's one of the highest-paid talent agents in America. Hooker also dabbled in television production and was equally successful.
  However, there was an aspect to Hooker's persona that made him, to say the least,persona non grata in the entertainment industry: Hooker is unabashedly and frankly anti-Jewish. He will be the first to admit it, no questions asked. A powerfully-built man, Hooker is fearless and not afraid to make his position known.
  One of Hooker's protégés was George Lincoln Rockwell, founder of the American Nazi Party. In his memoirs,This Time the World, Rockwell credits Hooker as being a major influence on his thinking. In fact, Rockwell dedicated the book to Hooker, along with several others including Sen. Joseph R. McCarthy and General Douglas MacArthur. Hooker, Rockwell declared, was the one "who taught me to know the cunning and evil ways of the enemy."(41)
 According to Rockwell, Hooker was "the nearest thing to a Nazi since the Bund."(42)  The reason for Hooker's interest in establishing an independent network was highly political: Hooker wanted the new network to be totally divorced from Jewish money and influence. In his judgment, the three existing networks were entirely under the control of Jewish interests. Hooker wanted a network that presented what he called "our way of thinking."


  It was in 1956 that Hooker had a private meeting in Palm Beach, Florida with Kennedy. After a game of golf, Kennedy and Hooker got down to business. Hooker was there to solicit Kennedy's financial, political and personal backing for his proposed network.
  (It was during this period that Sen. John F. Kennedy was then actively seeking the Democratic Party's vice presidential nomination. He lost, but his efforts brought him widespread acclaim within party ranks, and set in place the mechanism for his successful bid for the top spot on the party's national ticket in 1960.)  After Hooker made his presentation to the retired ambassador, Kennedy's response was supportive in spirit, but Old Joe made his final position clear during their four-hour conference.
  According to Hooker, "Joe admitted that when he was ambassador to England that he had been pro-Hitler. However, in Kennedy's words, 'we' lost the war. By 'we' he didn't mean the United States. When Kennedy said `we,' he meant the non-Jews. Joe Kennedy believed that it was the Jews who had won World War II.
  "Kennedy said, 'I've done everything I can to fight the Jewish power over this country. I tried to stop World War II, but I failed. I've made all the money I need and now I'm passing everything I've learned on to my sons." “I don't go with the 'loser'," Kennedy told me. 'I've joined the `winners.' I'm going to work with the Jews. I'm teaching my boys the whole score and they're going to work with the Jews. I'm going to make Jack the first Irish Catholic President of the United States and if it means working with the Jews, so be it. I'm in sympathy with what you're doing, Hooker'," Kennedy said, 'but I'm not going to do anything that will ruin Jack's chances to become president."'(43)
  Hooker was, of course, disappointed by Kennedy's response and ultimately his "fourth" network failed to get off the ground. However, Hooker at least had the satisfaction of knowing that he and the Kennedy family were on the same wavelength—even if they were willing to compromise those views for political gain.


 As they parted at the end of their Palm Beach meeting, Hooker asked Kennedy if there was anything he could do to help the Kennedy family.  "Yes, as a matter of fact, there is something you can do." responded Joe Kennedy. "I'd like you to use your contacts in the right-wing. Have them start publishing articles accusing Jack of being controlled by the Jews, of being a Jewish puppet. This will have the effect of neutralizing Jewish opposition to Jack (because of me).
  "The Jews know my views and naturally they'll assume that Jack is a chip off the old block. If the right wing starts hitting Jack this will give the Jews second thoughts—at least the ones who do the voting."(44)
  Hooker promised Kennedy he would do what he could. And being a man of his word, Hooker did influence his right-wing contacts as Kennedy had asked. Hooker encouraged his friend, Nazi leader Rockwell, and other "right wingers" to smear John F. Kennedy as JFK's father had suggested. His efforts succeed.  As one chronicle of the 1960 campaign noted: "The American Nazi Party helped too by throwing its support to Richard Nixon—"Nazis for Nixon, Kikes for Kennedy" was one of its slogans. Another of its placards read, "FDR and JFK mean JEW deal."(45)
  This, of course, was inspired by JFK's father and carried out through the good offices of DeWest Hooker and his friend George Lincoln Rockwell, although the historian who penned the description of Rockwell's sloganeering probably had no idea that it was indirectly the work of Joe Kennedy.  "Frankly," Hooker says to this day, "As far as I'm concerned, it was my work that got Johnny Kennedy in the White House."(46)
 (Hooker's claim is not completely off the mark, inasmuch as American Jewish leaders claimed themselves at the time that it was Jewish support for John F. Kennedy that gave him his narrow victory over Nixon in the 1960 election.)
  This interesting—and revealing—episode is not likely to be memorialized at the John F. Kennedy Library at Harvard or in any friendly biographies of the Kennedy family. However, there can be little doubt that Israel and its American lobby had a fairly good idea of what was going on behind the scenes. 

HNN - Joseph Kennedy and the Jews
Mr. Renehan's most recent book is The Kennedys at War, 1937-1945, published in April 2002 by Doubleday.

Arriving at London in early 1938, newly-appointed U.S. Ambassador Joseph P. Kennedy took up quickly with another transplanted American. Viscountess Nancy Witcher Langhorne Astor assured Kennedy early in their friendship that he should not be put off by her pronounced and proud anti-Catholicism.
"I'm glad you are smart enough not to take my [views] personally," she wrote. Astor pointed out that she had a number of Roman Catholic friends - G.K. Chesterton among them - with whom she shared, if nothing else, a profound hatred for the Jewish race. Joe Kennedy, in turn, had always detested Jews generally, although he claimed several as friends individually. Indeed, Kennedy seems to have tolerated the occasional Jew in the same way Astor tolerated the occasional Catholic.
As fiercely anti-Communist as they were anti-Semitic, Kennedy and Astor looked upon Adolf Hitler as a welcome solution to both of these "world problems" (Nancy's phrase). No member of the so-called "Cliveden Set" (the informal cabal of appeasers who met frequently at Nancy Astor's palatial home) seemed much concerned with the dilemma faced by Jews under the Reich. Astor wrote Kennedy that Hitler would have to do more than just "give a rough time" to "the killers of Christ" before she'd be in favor of launching  "Armageddon to save them. The wheel of history swings round as the Lord would have it. Who are we to stand in the way of the future?" Kennedy replied that he expected the "Jew media" in the United States to become a problem, that "Jewish pundits in New York and Los Angeles" were already making noises contrived to "set a match to the fuse of the world."
During May of 1938, Kennedy engaged in extensive discussions with the new German Ambassador to the Court of St. James's, Herbert von Dirksen. In the midst of these conversations (held without approval from the U.S. State Department), Kennedy advised von Dirksen that President Roosevelt was the victim of "Jewish influence" and was poorly informed as to the philosophy, ambitions and ideals of Hitler's regime. (The Nazi ambassador subsequently told his bosses that Kennedy was "Germany's best friend" in London.)
Columnists back in the states condemned Kennedy's fraternizing. Kennedy later claimed that 75% of the attacks made on him during his Ambassadorship emanated from "a number of Jewish publishers and writers. ... Some of them in their zeal did not hesitate to resort to slander and falsehood to achieve their aims." He told his eldest son, Joe Jr., that he disliked having to put up with "Jewish columnists" who criticized him with no good reason.
Like his father, Joe Jr. admired Adolf Hitler. Young Joe had come away impressed by Nazi rhetoric after traveling in Germany as a student in 1934. Writing at the time, Joe applauded Hitler's insight in realizing the German people's "need of a common enemy, someone of whom to make the goat. Someone, by whose riddance the Germans would feel they had cast out the cause of their predicament. It was excellent psychology,  and it was too bad that it had to be done to the Jews. The dislike of the Jews, however, was well-founded. They were at the heads of all big business, in law etc. It is all to their credit for them to get so far, but their methods had been quite unscrupulous ... the lawyers and prominent judges were Jews, and if you had a case against a Jew, you were nearly always sure to lose it. ... As far as the brutality is concerned, it must have been necessary to use some ...."
Brutality was in the eye of the beholder. Writing to Charles Lindbergh shortly after Kristallnacht in November of 1938,  Joe Kennedy Sr. seemed more concerned about the political ramifications stemming from high-profile, riotous anti-Semitism than he was about the actual violence done to the Jews.  "... Isn't there some way," he asked, "to persuade [the Nazis] it is on a situation like this that the whole program of saving western civilization might hinge? It is more and more difficult for those seeking peaceful solutions to advocate any plan when the papers are filled with such horror." Clearly, Kennedy's chief concern about Kristallnacht was that it might serve to harden anti-fascist sentiment at home in the United States.
Like his friend Charles Coughlin (an anti-Semitic broadcaster and Roman Catholic priest), Kennedy always remained convinced of what he believed to be the Jews' corrupt, malignant, and profound influence in American culture and politics. "The Democratic [party] policy of the United States is a Jewish production," Kennedy told a British reporter near the end of 1939, adding confidently that Roosevelt would "fall" in 1940.
But it wasn't Roosevelt who fell. Kennedy resigned his ambassadorship just weeks after FDR's overwhelming triumph at the polls. He then retreated to his home in Florida: a bitter, resentful man nurturing religious and racial bigotries that put him out-of-step with his country, and out-of-touch with history.

Lisez et écoutez les émissions de radio du père Charles E. Coughlin (, populiste, anti-judéo-maçonnico-ploutocratie, fondateur du groupe National Union for Social Justice.

Le père Coughlin fut l'un des premiers américains à exiger l'abolition de la Réserve Fédérale! Voir: Populist Priest 'Fathered' the End-the-Fed Movement, by Mark Anderson, American Free Press

D'autres populistes et patriotes importants: Ezra Pound, Charles Lindbergh, Henry Ford, associés au America First Committee (qu'on pourrait traduire par "comité l'Amérique d'abord") qui était opposé à la Seconde Guerre mondiale. Certes, Lindbergh et Ford appuyaient Adolf Hitler qui ne voulait pas la guerre, mais leur opposition à la guerre venait surtout du fait que, comme les Pères fondateurs tels que George Washington lui-même, ils craignaient l'emmêlement de leur pays dans des conflits à l'étranger et pour des intérêts qui ne sont pas les leurs. Le peuple américains en voulait pas la guerre. Dans son célèbre discours du 11 septembre 1941 (l'intégrale, extrait traduit) contre les fauteurs de guerre, Lindbergh accusait 1) les Juifs, 2) les Britanniques (Churchill, que l'on sait avoir été dirigé par la clique de financiers juifs The Focus) et 3) l'administration (juive) de Roosevelt (qui avait pourtant promis "pas de guerre") de trahir le peuple américain en faisant tout pour envoyer les jeunes américains se faire tuer dans une guerre contraire aux intérêts de la nation (ce qu'allaient précipiter les incidents de Pearl Harbor quelques mois plus tard).

Quant au procès de Nuremberg contre les nazis, les Kennedy l'ont toujours considéré comme une parodie de procès.
L'administration du traître Roosevelt a traîné en cour plusieurs patriotes américains anti-communistes dans le cadre exceptionnel d'un méga-procès pour "sédition" : on comptait parmi eux Elizabeth Dilling, Lawrence Dennis et un tas d'autres critiques de l'administration Roosevelt. Lire l'excellent l'article de Michael Collins Piper à ce sujet: The Great Sedition Trail. C'est là qu'on voit quelle sorte de traître FDR a été vis-à-vis des authentiques patriotes américains. Le texte complet de l'article se trouve dans le livre de Michael Collins Piper The Judas Goats. Par son lend-lease, FDR a trahi son propre pays et condamné l'Europe entière (à l'inverse d'Hitler) en accordant une aide financière et matérielle immense à la survie de l'Union soviétique. Plusieurs années avant l'assassinat de JFK, Joseph P. Kennedy souffrait de la mort de son fils aîné Joe ; il considérait Roosevelt comme "ce fils de pute qui a tué mon fils Joe". La mort de Joe à la guerre est très suspecte, comme l'est aussi celle de John F., Robert F., et JFK Jr, qui sont autant d'assassinats politiques avérés, les deux derniers étant liés à l'enquête sur le fameux assassinat de JFK, qui devait à tout prix rester un mystère pour le pouvoir en place.


Michael Collins Piper, YE SHALL KNOW THE TRUTH

Il y a 40 ans disparaissait Charles Lindbergh, aviateur, inventeur, écrivain et... « antisémite »


Shocking Revelations Emerge in New Book
• Those Angry Days: Roosevelt, Lindbergh and America’s Fight Over World War II, 1939-1941
By Michael Collins Piper
Until a few years ago, most patriots fondly recalled aviator Charles Lindbergh for his leadership of the America First movement that fought to prevent Franklin D. Roosevelt from steering the United States into war against Adolf Hitler’s Germany.
However, in recent times, pernicious Internet agitprop has convinced many patriots that heroes like Lindbergh and his “isolationist” colleagues were actually traitors doing the work of the New World Order.
One broadcaster in particular promotes this nonsense by constantly harping about “the Nazis,” hyping writers who smear Lindbergh and claim Hitler’s heirs are today plotting the “rise of the Fourth Reich.”
Those conned by this garbage fail to see this is really a ploy to keep the image of “the Holocaust” alive, thereby advancing the interests of Israel, which benefits from the Holocaust in multiple ways, without ever mentioning the word “Israel” even once. And that’s propaganda at its most deceptive and calculating.
Even more disturbing is that—as a consequence of this skewed version of history taking a grip on the minds of so many—a remarkable number of today’s patriots have no idea that roughly 90 percent of the American people agreed with Lindbergh: A war against Hitler was a war America should not fight.
The history of that period has been savagely distorted and those who should know don’t have a clue as to what really happened.
Ironically, however, coming out of an elite publishing giant, Random House, is a new book presenting a fascinating look at the efforts by Lindbergh to stop the push to embroil America in that unnecessary war: Those Angry Days: Roosevelt, Lindbergh and America’s Fight Over World War II, 1939-1941.*
The flagrantly pro-British author, Lynne Olson, clearly holds Lindbergh’s traditional American nationalism in contempt, which explains why former secretary of state Madeleine Albright—who famously said the price of 500,000 dead Iraqi children was “worth it”—hails Olson as “our era’s foremost chronicler of World War II politics and diplomacy.”
Still, though soiled by its pro-New World Order slant, this is a book patriots need to read. Many books from establishment sources contain a lot of valuable facts. This is one such volume. Here are just a few of the author’s amazing admissions:
• Solid data proving that the Council on Foreign Relations (CFR) and its Wall Street backers did not support Hitler, but vehemently opposed him.
• British intelligence set up shop at Rockefeller Center in Manhattan and collaborated with the pro-war Fight for Freedom—mostly “upper class East Coast Protestants”—and the Anti-Defamation League (ADL) of B’nai B’rith, the Jewish espionage agency. All worked closely with FBI Director J. Edgar Hoover who was tapping the phones of those who opposed to the drive for war that Lindbergh said was the work of “the British, the Jewish and the Roosevelt administration.”
• The amazing story of how many high-ranking military officers “fiercely opposed” FDR’s efforts to arm Britain. Opposing aid to the British was no less than Gen. George C. Marshall whom the author says is now “regarded as the country’s greatest military figure in WWII.”
•While Americans today believe Britain was always seen as a grand ally, the author reveals that, after World War I, “many Americans came to believe that their country had entered the war not because its own national interests demanded such action, but because it had been tricked by the scheming, duplicitous British.”
• FDR utilized warmongering rhetoric of exactly the type today coming from essentially the same sources, including advocacy of the kind of police-state measures such as the Patriot Act and the concept of “homeland security,” which patriots have become convinced was a “Nazi” invention. Substitute’s today’s Muslim-bashing for German-bashing and it is history repeating itself.
Declaring any criticism of his policies as detrimental to national security, FDR spoke of “clever schemes of foreign agents” on American soil. However, the author admits: “The United States never faced any serious threat of internal subversion before or during the war. But the American people never knew that; in fact, they were told the opposite.”
• And, despite Pearl Harbor, most Americans still didn’t see the need for war against Hitler. The author admits, “the odds are high that Congress and the American people would have pressured the president to turn away from an undeclared war against Germany . . . and focus instead on defeating Japan.” Today, most Americans think Pearl Harbor sparked a nationwide cry of “Defeat the Nazi Beast.” It never happened.
Michael Collins Piper is an author, journalist, lecturer and radio show host. He has spoken in Russia, Malaysia, Iran, Abu Dhabi, Japan, Canada and the U.S. He is the author of Final Judgment, The New Jerusalem, The High Priests of War, Dirty Secrets, My First Days in the White House, The New Babylon, Share the Wealth, The Judas Goats, Target: Traficant and The Golem.
The Book’s Publisher Says
Those Angry Days is the definitive account of the debate over American intervention in World War II—a bitter, sometimes violent clash of personalities and ideas that divided the nation and ultimately determined the fate of the free world.
At the center of this controversy stood the two most famous men in America: President Franklin D. Roosevelt, who championed the interventionist cause, and aviator Charles Lindbergh, who as unofficial leader and spokesman for America’s isolationists emerged as the president’s most formidable adversary. Their contest of wills personified the divisions within the country at large, and author Lynne Olson makes masterly use of their dramatic personal stories to create a poignant and riveting narrative.
While FDR, buffeted by political pressures on all sides, struggled to marshal public support for aid to Winston Churchill’s Britain, Lindbergh saw his heroic reputation besmirched by allegations that he was a Nazi.
Spanning the years 1939 to 1941, Those Angry Days vividly recreates the rancorous internal squabbles that gripped the United States in the period leading up to Pearl Harbor. After Germany vanquished most of Europe, America found itself torn between its traditional isolationism and the need to come to the aid of Britain, the only country still battling Hitler. The conflict over intervention was, as FDR noted, “a dirty fight,” rife with chicanery and intrigue, and Those Angry Days recounts every bruising detail.

Plutocracy Thrives on War• Your fellow Americans need the truth found in AMERICAN FREE PRESS
By Willis A. Carto
And now the geniuses who run our foreign policy tell us that we must have troops in Afghanistan until 2024. After all, don’t we have to bring “democracy” to these mountaineers who like their country just the way it’s been for many centuries?
Afghanistan has never started any war with the United States. The Afghans just want to be left alone. But we can’t have that, now, can we?
The Afghans raise a lot of poppies. It’s a pretty flower. The fact that opium is made from poppies wouldn’t have anything to do with our foreign policy, would it? Or can it be that this profitable fact has something to do with our foreign policy? You wouldn’t suppose that some of the patriotic gents who run our foreign policy have their filthy hands in the till, would you?
This relatively minor situation can hardly be compared with our intervention into the European war that became World War I by our stupid intervention.
We lost 116,708 American men in that needless adventure, not tomention spending some $32 billion. The interest on that debt is accumulating and is now perhaps in the hundreds of billions of dollars, but who’s counting?
And then there was the European war that started when Winston Churchill declared war on a Germany that tried everything to avoid such a calamity. Franklin Roosevelt told us that we had to stop that madman, Adolf Hitler, before he conquered the world although that was not Hitler’s plan at all—all he wanted was to stop the communist aggressor, Josef Stalin. He even sent his deputy, Rudolf Hess, to Britain with a written peace offer for Churchill. But Hess was locked up and held in solitary confinement by Churchill for the rest of his life for having the boldness to try to stop the war. For Roosevelt, this was the golden opportunity he needed to get a third and even a fourth term. A good war has many advantages for criminal politicians.
Why can’t Americans realize that the political establishment feeds on war and rumors of war?
The war industry is extremely profitable for the makers of tanks, warplanes, battleships, uniforms, etc. They never have to worry about payment for their paraphernalia for war; the government always pays with your tax money or more national debt. And the latter has the advantage of bearing interest that the bankers and bondholders love.
Can the American people wake up and stop acting like children? Why doesn’t the rest of the media say what AMERICAN FREE PRESS does?
Since the rest of the media can’t be trusted to tell the American people what they need to know, the people’s only alternative is AFP. For that reason alone AFP should have at least a million subscribers.
So why doesn’t AFP have a million subscribers?
I am not sure, but let’s do something about it right now. . . .
On page 8 of this issue is a coupon offering 16 weeks of AFP to a friend for just $15. All you have to do is fill out the form, enclose $15 and send the form along with the address of the gift recipient to AFP. I will personally match every subscription that comes in from this coupon out of my own pocket. If every subscriber would do that, we could double our numbers overnight, and I’ll be happily applying for a loan at the bank.
Willis A. Carto is a longtime national editor and publisher. In 1955, Carto founded LIBERTY LOBBY, the first all-American, pro-middle class lobby group. In 1975 he launched The Spotlight newspaper which at one time had 375,000 subscribers. Currently he is the editor and publisher of THE BARNES REVIEW Revisionist history magazine. For a free sample issue and brochure, please contact TBR, P.O. Box 15877, Washington, D.C. 20003. Anyone who wants a free copy of Carto’s booklet A Straight Look at the SecondWorldWar need only send $1 to the above address. TBR also has a website carrying books that relate to the subjects covered above. These include Smedley Butler’s War Is a Racket, Joachim Hoffman’s Stalin’s War of Extermination, Victor Suvorov’s The Chief Culprit, David Irving’s Churchill’s War, Abdallah Melaouhi’s Rudolf Hess: His Betrayal and Murder and PerpetualWar for Perpetual Peace, edited by Harry Elmer Barnes. See more at


La « fascisation » de la démocratie et le fascisme post-hitlérien. Le cas Francis Parker Yockey

28 juin 2006

Francis Parker Yockey fut arrêté par le FBI en juin 1960. Depuis dix ans, il était recherché par la police pour participation à quelques affaires illicites mais aussi à cause de ses activités politiques. Quelques jours plus tard, Yockey fut trouvé mort dans sa cellule, suite à l’absorption d’une capsule de cyanure. Il avait 43 ans.

Aujourd’hui, qui parmi nous connaît cet obscur avocat américain ? Par contre, une rapide enquête auprès des cadres de l’extrême droite européenne surprendrait. « Yockey, mais c’est bien sûr ! », s’écriraient à l’unisson Madelin, Haider, Le Pen et bien d’autres militants au crâne rasé. Personnage mystérieux et énigmatique, Yockey était une figure marginale mais néanmoins importante de la mouvance fasciste de l’après-guerre. Son livre, Imperium, publié pour la première fois à Londres en 1948, allait devenir un ouvrage de référence dans ces milieux.

Kevin Coogan, membre du collectif des éditions Autonomedia de New York, a entrepris de reconstituer la vie agitée de Yockey. Six cents pages d’une lecture passionnante, fruit de longues et sérieuses recherches, nous font plonger dans le monde trouble du fascisme international de l’après-guerre [1].

En 1930, encore étudiant, Francis Yockey découvre les idées de Spengler. Partant de son pessimisme et son antilibéralisme de droite, il développe une critique fasciste du capitalisme américain et se met à rêver d’un État européen fort capable de lui faire face – idée qu’on trouvera plus tard développée dans son livre. Pendant la deuxième guerre, c’est tout naturellement que Yockey prend partie pour l’Axe, s’impliquant probablement dans les réseaux de renseignements pro-allemands. C’est à cette époque qu’il a ses premiers déboires avec le FBI. Toutefois, une fois la guerre terminée, on le trouve en Allemagne parmi le personnel officiel américain, avocat dans les procès des criminels nazis. La guerre froide avait commencé et les services secrets américains recrutaient leurs ennemis d’hier pour le combat contre l’ennemi de demain. L’intérêt du monde libre passait avant les responsabilités dans le génocide nazi. On peut penser que le fasciste Yockey leur fut fort utile dans cette tâche.

La page tournée, Yockey met toute son énergie au service de la construction d’une nouvelle internationale fasciste. Il mènera une vie mystérieuse, évoluant dans des réseaux du fascisme international, où se croisent services secrets et hommes d’affaires louches. Un monde de paranoïaques, de conspirateurs et de comploteurs, fidèles au culte du chef et de la race aryenne. Rien de très original, si ce n’est que le parcours labyrinthique de ce militant d’extrême-droite américain est, à bien des égards, exemplaire. Le monde politique de Yockey a peu à voir avec l’idée simpliste que l’antifasciste moyen se fait du fascisme. En effet, Yockey fut un des « théoriciens » du fascisme moderne post-hitlérien, fondé sur un anti-américanisme viscéral et sur la recherche d’une alliance avec les régimes communistes et les mouvements nationalistes du tiers-monde. De quoi troubler tout lecteur ou lectrice bien intentionnée du Monde diplomatique.

L’idéologie de ce courant se structure autour de quelques idées fortes. Il y a, d’une part, l’antisémitisme classique associé à l’anticapitalisme : le pouvoir capitaliste occidental et américain étant assimilé au capital financier qui serait totalement contrôlé par la bourgeoisie juive. À cela s’ajoute une analyse géopolitique des rapports de force impérialistes d’où ressort la nécessité d’une alliance Europe-Russie contre les États-Unis. Central dans cette alliance, on retrouve l’axe nationaliste Allemagne-Russie. On sait que cette dernière idée fut naguère défendue par des tendances du national-socialisme allemand, de Junger à Strasser, ainsi que par Goebbels. Le courant minoritaire des nationaux-bolchévistes défendit également cette alliance nationaliste - alliance que la direction du P.C. allemand reprit un moment à son compte après le traité de Rapallo entre l’URSS et l’Allemagne, en 1922, en déclarant l’Allemagne « pays national opprimé » et en collaborant avec les ligues nationalistes de la Ruhr occupée par l’armée française. Chez Yockey et ses amis, l’idée d’un euro-imperium capable de s’opposer au capitalisme (juif, bien entendu) américain est indissociable de cette vision géopolitique et de cette alliance entre l’Allemagne et la Russie. Comme Hitler hier, ils pensaient que Staline était le chef capable d’amener la Russie à cette alliance. En 1953, Yockey applaudit aux Procès de Prague. Il y voit le tournant décisif dans la politique de Staline, lequel s’engagerait enfin dans une voie antisémite et donc anticapitaliste... De même, ce courant du nouveau fascisme d’après-guerre salue le succès des mouvements de libération nationale contre les puissances coloniales. Il prend ouvertement position pour la montée des nationalismes dans le tiers-monde qui menacent l’impérialisme américain. C’est ainsi que Francis Yockey s’intéresse particulièrement au nationalisme arabe et établit des liens étroits avec le régime de Nasser en Égypte, où il séjournera assez souvent. Plus tard, il ne cachera pas son attirance pour le régime de Castro.

On comprend que cette nouvelle conception fasciste, prônant un front anti-impérialiste et anti-américain, ait trouvé des adeptes dans l’Europe de l’après-guerre, où elle répondit plus directement aux intérêts nationaux hostiles à la domination capitaliste américaine. Aux États-Unis, où les forces d’extrême-droite sont farouchement patriotiques et plutôt tentées par l’isolationnisme, seul l’aspect antisémite pouvait séduire, alors que les questions de géopolitique apparaissaient comme secondaires.

Le projet géopolitique d’alliance nationaliste entre l’Allemagne et la Russie, substance de ce courant, rappelle la thèse de Zeev Sternhell sur les origines de l’idéologie fasciste [2]. Tenant compte des apports socialistes et syndicalistes du fascisme, cet auteur renvoie dos à dos extrémismes de droite et de gauche pour justifier la démocratie bourgeoise comme l’horizon indépassable de la politique moderne. La thèse de Sternhell, au-delà de ses intentions démocratiques, tend à simplifier le rapport entre fascisme et contre-révolution. En tant qu’idéologie de la contre-révolution, le fascisme et le national-socialisme reprennent à leur compte des éléments critiques du socialisme et du syndicalisme-révolutionnaire, dans le but d’édifier un nouvel État correspondant à la structuration nouvelle du pouvoir de classe bourgeois. Et la démagogie anticapitaliste du fascisme fut un divertissement qui permit d’instaurer des formes autoritaires d’exploitation du travail et perpétuer le système du salariat. Ceci n’a pas empêché les fascistes de ménager et d’utiliser le système représentatif parlementaire pour parvenir au pouvoir. Dès 1939, Karl Korsch voyait dans ce rapport entre fascisme et socialisme, l’expression de la « loi de la contre-révolution fasciste », qu’il énonçait ainsi : « Après la défaite complète des forces révolutionnaires, la contre-révolution fasciste essaie d’accomplir à l’aide de nouvelles méthodes révolutionnaires, et sous une forme grandement différente, les tâches sociales et politiques que les partis et les syndicats dits réformistes avaient promis d’exécuter sans pouvoir y parvenir dans les conditions historiques données. » [3]. Le fascisme prit donc pour ennemi idéologique et pour modèle pratique le courant autoritaire, totalitaire du socialisme. Dans le discours démocratique qui a cours aujourd’hui, le bolchevisme et le stalinisme, passent pour l’extrémisme de gauche, alors qu’il s’agissait des deux frères ennemis du fascisme. Lorsque, en 1933, Hitler interdit toute la littérature socialiste, seule fut autorisée la diffusion du texte de Lénine, Le Gauchisme, maladie infantile du communisme - ce qui en dit long sur la convergence de nature des deux prétendus extrémismes opposés. Pour les révolutionnaires qui s’étaient battus contre le capitalisme, c’était la preuve que cet écrit de Lénine montrait clairement l’essence autoritaire du système russe, fondé sur l’autorité du chef et le rôle d’une élite révolutionnaire [4].

Ces courants communistes révolutionnaires des années 20, virent très tôt dans le fascisme et le bolchevisme deux variantes de « la tendance fasciste générale » qui caractérisait l’évolution du capitalisme mondial. Pour eux, le système évoluait vers une forme de capitalisme d’État, laquelle rendait désuet le capitalisme privé en transformant ses formes politiques traditionnelles, à commencer par la démocratie parlementaire. C’était à partir de cette analyse qu’ils se positionnaient face au fascisme. Ils reconnaissaient certes que pour les exploités le fascisme était pire que la démocratie parlementaire. Pourtant, s’il fallait lutter contre le fascisme, cette lutte ne pouvait se faire au nom de la démocratie, elle-même en voie de « fascisation ». Il fallait mener le combat avec ses propres forces [5]. Certains ne virent dans cette analyse qu’une identification simpliste entre fascisme et démocratie, escamotant la proposition d’une opposition révolutionnaire à cette « tendance générale du fascisme » et pas seulement à telle ou telle forme spécifique.

S’ils se sont trompés sur l’évolution irrémédiable du capitalisme vers un capitalisme d’État, les extrémistes communistes des années 20 ont vu juste pour à propos de l’évolution autoritaire des formes politiques. La sauvagerie des formes d’exploitation néolibérales, l’éloge d’un marché libre de toutes contraintes ne vont-ils pas aujourd’hui de pair avec un État de plus en plus autoritaire et répressif ?

À la fin de son livre sur Yockey, Kevin Coogan manifeste cependant une inquiétude que nous ne partageons pas : « (...) la décadence de la gauche est telle qu’elle peut manquer de capacité pour comprendre, et encore plus, pour lutter, contre les nouvelles formes de fascisme qui incorporent la rhétorique et les idées « gauchistes ». Ironiquement, les idioties criminelles bien connues des nazillons et autres skinheads, qui continuent à fétichiser les reliques du fascisme de papi, peuvent cacher l’incubation de tendances nouvelles et plus sophistiquées de l’idéologie post-hitlérienne. ». Pour notre part, nous serions tentés de penser que les débris de cette gauche en décadence peuvent fort bien être une partie constitutive de ces nouvelles tendances. Aujourd’hui comme hier, la gauche ne peut lutter contre le fascisme car elle se place sur le même terrain de la politique étatique et autoritaire. Les nouvelles formes autoritaires de pouvoir naîtront de la décomposition du système politique démocratique. Les récentes mobilisations anti-mondialisation, où se côtoient dans la plus grande confusion, nationalismes et protectionnismes de toute sorte, montrent que le danger existe [6]. Ce nouveau fascisme n’est peut-être pas là où l’on croît le reconnaître. En tout cas, les conceptions fascistes défendant la formation d’un grand empire Europe opposé au capital financier américain, partagées par Francis Yockey et ses acolytes, sont loin d’être éloignées de notre présent.
[1] Kevin Coogan, Dreamer of the day, Francis Parkers Yockey and the Postwar Fasciste International, Autonomedia (POB 568, Williamsburg Station, 55 South 11th Street, Brooklyn, N.Y. 11211-0568, USA), NY, 2000.

[2] Ce que fait d’ailleurs Nicholas Goodrick-Clarke dans sa présentation au livre de Kevin Coogan. De Zeev Sternhell on peut lire, Naissance de l’idéologie fasciste (avec d’autres auteurs) et La droite révolutionnaire 1885-1914, les origines françaises du fascisme, Gallimard.

[3] Karl Korsch, « L’État et la contre-révolution », in Marxisme et Contre-révolution, Seuil, 1975.

[4] Otto Rühle, Fascisme brun, fascisme rouge, Spartacus, 1975.

[5] Paul Mattick, Otto Rühle et le mouvement ouvrier allemand, (en particulier le chapitre « Les limites des systèmes totalitaires »), in Fascisme brun, fascisme rouge, Op. cit. Sur la position de K. Korsch sur le fascisme et l’antifascisme, Karl Korsch, La guerre et la révolution, Éditions Ab Irato (BP 328-75525 Paris cedex 11), Paris, 2000.

[6] « Les dangers nationalistes de l’antimondialisation », Oiseau-tempête, n°7, automne 2000.

Nationalism: The Wave of the Future —
The Prime Target of the Global Forces
of Zionism and Internationalism

. . .THE JUDAS GOATS — THE ENEMY WITHIN examines the manner in which internationalist forces have worked to take over and/or destroy legitimate, genuine, traditional nationalist movements in the United States during the 20th century. As such, it seems appropriate to begin our journey into this shadowy netherworld of spies and subversion by first defining precisely what constitutes “nationalism” in the American sense.
. . .Nationalism — in its various incarnations throughout history and all across the globe — has always been and certainly always will be a preeminent factor in dictating the course of mankind’s direction. Nationalism and the counter-force of internationalism together form the axis around which the events of our world today revolve. There is hardly any conflict anywhere on the face of the planet that does not hinge upon the struggle between nationalism and internationalism. So what then is nationalism?
. . .In America alone, the word nationalism means many different things to many different people — including those who consider themselves to be nationalists or rank themselves as part of “the nationalist movement.”
. . .The “nationalist movement” in America has always been quite internally quarrelsome, at times so philosophically disjointed that it almost seems a double misnomer to dare describe the phenomenon as either “nationalist” or as a “movement” at all.
. . .There are many (albeit naïve) classic “rock-ribbed Republicans” who would call themselves nationalists — however inappropriately — revering the “Big Stick” philosophy of Theodore Roosevelt, reveling in the idea that Uncle Sam should make his presence and his considerable military might felt ‘round the globe — America right or wrong. This, to these folks, is “nationalism”— but, of course, it isn’t, although the modern-day “neo-conservatives” who relish the thought of using America to advance the worldwide Zionist agenda have been quite ready to exploit “TR” as almost one of their own.
. . .In marked contrast to these “neo-conservatives,” there are many other Americans — who truly are nationalists in the classic sense of the word — who question the very idea that the United States should act as a world policeman, putting out brushfire wars and advancing some undefined dream of “democracy,” which has now become the rallying cry of the neo-conservative (that is, Zionist-Trotskyite) schemers.

. . .In fact, the genuine American nationalists, as opposed to the “neocons” (who truly are “cons” in every sense of that word), are the modern-day heirs of a traditional American (and, ironically, largely Republican Party-based) philosophy heralded by the late Sen. Arthur Vandenberg (R-Mich.) when he affirmed: “Nationalism — not internationalism — is the indispensable bulwark of American independence.”
. . .In his now long-forgotten, but still quite timely, volume, The Trail of a Tradition (G.P. Putnam’s Sons, New York, 1926), Vandenberg sought to define the American nationalist tradition in the context of U.S. engagement with the world at large — from the days of our Founding Fathers through the era of Woodrow Wilson and the attempt to enforce a world regime through the engine of the failed League of Nations.
. . .In the end, of course, Vandenberg himself underwent a remarkable transformation — thanks largely, it appears, to having been blackmailed and otherwise “influenced” by British intelligence operatives — and shifted into the internationalist camp — acting as an outspoken advocate of free-wheeling U.S. involvement in global affairs. However, in his early years,Vandenberg was indeed very much a part of what we might rightly call the genuine “nationalist” camp — one that occupied quite a large bit of territory in the land of American political thought.
. . .Another area where self-described “nationalists” seem to part company is on the ever-important issue of trade. There, the conflict between real nationalism and the internationalist, imperial perversion of “nationalism” is critical to the debate. Free trade versus protectionism (as advocated by traditional nationalists) presents a very real dilemma for self-styled “conservatives” within Republican Party ranks, for example, who, on the one hand, consider themselves “nationalists” and say they are for America First, but who — on the altar of free trade — are actually working to sacrifice American sovereignty to multinational trade organizations and global financial conglomerates. So there is a very basic divergence between free trade and national sovereignty.
. . .The fact is that free trade has historical ties not only to British imperialism and global super-capitalism, but also even with the great bugaboo of American conservatives: communism itself. In 1848, Karl Marx, the father of communism, advocated free trade because, he said, “it breaks up old nationalities and carries antagonisms of proletariat [workers] and bourgeoisie [small businessmen] to the uttermost point.”
. . .According to Marx, “the free trade system hastens the social revolution.” In short, modern day conservatives who support free trade are actually supporting a central tenet of Marxism. So, are these “conservatives” truly “nationalist” in the classic sense? It seems not.
. . .Which brings us to the definition of nationalism . . .

. . .The word “nationalism” — and the general knowledge of the history surrounding the concept of nationalism — raises negative images in the minds of those people — largely educated people, largely politicized people — who bother to think about the subject.
. . .For the average student (at either the high school or college level) who devotes little of his academic energies toward the realms of history or political science — the quite sensible would-be rocket scientist, architect or accountant who has no desire to dabble in political endeavor — the word “nationalism” may even conjure up the absolute, all-encompassing definition of evil as perceived by today’s society and culture and repeated endlessly in the mass media:
. . .NATIONALISM: Adolf Hitler, the Third Reich, German militarism, concentration camps, six million innocent Jews — maybe as many as seven or eight million, possibly eleven million — marched off to the gas chambers, later to be incinerated in gas ovens. And don’t forget Japanese kamikaze fighter pilots — and Tojo, too... .
Taken right from the comics or a Hollywood drama, that in essence, sums up the common-place perception — indeed, really, the more or less “official” definition — of what constitutes “nationalism.”
. . .And this is no accident. The writing of both popular and academic history and the authority and power to define what “nationalism” was co-opted and has since been dominated — at least throughout the second half of the 20th century, and in the Anglo-American world, in particular — by persons and institutions distinctly hostile to nationalism in all its varieties and forms.
. . .This is a direct consequence of the growing concentration of media ownership in the hands of an elite few — closely connected families and financial groups — who benefit from internationalist policies. This is no “conspiracy theory,” by any means. Prominent media critic Professor Ben Bagdikian, in his book The Media Monopoly, summarizes the situation well:
. . .The [media] lords of the global village have their own political agenda. All resist economic changes that do not support their own financial interests. Together, they exert a homogenizing power over ideas, culture and commerce that affects populations larger than any in history. Neither Caesar nor Hitler, Franklin Roosevelt nor any Pope, has commanded as much power to shape the information on which so many people depend to make decisions about everything from whom to vote for to what to eat . .
. . .Monopolistic power dominates many other industries and most of them enjoy special treatment by the government. But media giants have two enormous advantages: They control the public image of national leaders who, as a result, fear and favor the media magnates’ political agendas; and they control the information and entertainment that help establish the social, political and cultural attitudes of increasingly larger populations . . .
. . .Now, in the wake of this most unfortunate phenomenon — this monopolization of the power to educate and inform — the actual nature and substance of what truly constitutes “nationalism” has been distorted. As such, more modern-day efforts to not only understand and define and advance the cause of nationalism have been relegated to what the Masters of the Media loosely call “the fringe.”
. . .During the mid-20th century, the one notable independent effort to define nationalism — at least in the American historical context — came through the work of one Willis A. Carto, the Indiana-born founder of a Washington-based institution known as Liberty Lobby, the publisher of a widely-read national weekly newspaper, The Spotlight.
. . .Although driven into bankruptcy and destroyed in 2001 by a politically- motivated lawsuit that was affirmed by a federal judge, The Spotlight emerged, during its heyday, as perhaps the largest and most effective voice for traditional American nationalism — the very reason that the maverick newspaper was targeted for evisceration.
. . .A survivor of wounds inflicted upon him by the Japanese during brutal combat in the Pacific theater during World War II, Liberty Lobby’s future founder, Carto, returned home and — unlike many veterans who believed the official propaganda — began his own personal journey of investigation, seeking the answers to the “how” and the “why” of American involvement in that genocidal world conflagration.
. . .Ultimately, Carto came to question the necessity of U.S. involvement not only in World War II but in virtually all of the wars of the 20th century. In fact, long before it became politically popular to do so — and certainly unlike many on the traditional “right” — Carto raised questions about the U.S. intervention in Southeast Asia, while conventional “Cold War Liberals” were still pushing for deeper American entanglement in the region, ultimately leading to the Vietnam debacle.
. . .Never considering himself anything but a nationalist, Carto made a conscious effort to draw the lines and distinctions between American “conservatism” of the Republican stripe and traditional nationalism. Rejecting what he considered to be the tired and worn and thoroughly inadequate concepts of “right” and “left,” Carto worked energetically through Liberty Lobby to develop a thriving nationalist movement, specifically focusing on the dangers of internationalism, placing nationalism as central to the overall framework of an American populist philosophy exemplified by Thomas Jefferson and an approach toward foreign relations (in particular) as laid out by George Washington in his Farewell Address.
. . .Carto’s book, Populism vs.Plutocracy:The Universal Struggle, captured the essence of Carto’s nationalist point of view, reflecting on the monumental figures of American populism and their particular contributions to nationalist thought: ranging from statesmen such as Jefferson and Jackson to progressive firebrands as Robert LaFollette and Burton Wheeler to famed radio priest, Father Charles Coughlin, America First Committee spokesman Charles Lindbergh, nationalist Sen. Robert Taft, and such intellectual giants as Lawrence Dennis, undoubtedly the premier American nationalist theoretician of the 20th century.
. . .The views of these men — plus many other giants — taken together comprised a basis for the nationalist philosophy that Carto put forth in every way possible through a wide variety of media at his disposal over some 50 years of active involvement in the American public arena.
. . .Carto insisted that adherence to Washington’s words of wisdom provided not only the means to ensure America’s tranquil relations with its neighbors — near and far — but also a foundation for building a strong nation capable of ensuring its own domestic stability.
. . .Perhaps more than any other American — including Washington himself — Carto utilized the considerable media outreach at his disposal to repeat, time and time again, Washington’s warnings:
. . .So likewise, a passionate attachment of one nation for another produces a variety of evils. Sympathy for the favorite nation, facilitating the illusion of an imaginary common interest in cases where no real common interest exists, and infusing into one the enmities of the other, betrays the former into a participation in the quarrels and wars of the latter, without adequate inducements or justifications. It also leads to concessions, to the favorite nation, of privileges denied to others, which is apt doubly to injure the nation making the concessions, by unnecessary parting with what ought to have been retained and by exciting jealousy, ill will and a disposition to retaliate in the parties from whom equal privileges are withheld; and it gives to ambitious, corrupted or deluded citizens who devote themselves to the favorite nation, facility to betray or sacrifice the interests of their own country, without odium, sometimes even with popularity; gilding with the appearances of a virtuous sense of obligation, a commendable deference for public opinion, or a laudable zeal for public good, the base or foolish compliances of ambition, corruption or infatuation.
. . .Against the insidious wiles of foreign influence (I conjure you to believe me, fellow citizens) the jealousy of a free people ought to be constantly awake; since history and experience prove that foreign influence is one of the most baneful foes of republican government. But that jealousy, to be useful, must be impartial, else it becomes the instrument of the very influence to be avoided, instead of a defense against it.
. . .Excessive partiality for one foreign nation, and excessive dislike for another, cause those whom they acuate to see dangeronly on one side, and serve to veil and even second the arts of influence on the other.
. . .Real patriots, who may resist the intrigues of the favorite, are liable to become suspected and odious; while its tools and dupes usurp the applause and confidence of the people, to surrender their interest.
. . .The great rule of conduct for us, in regard to foreign nations, is, in extending our commercial relations, to have with them as little political connection as possible. So far as we have already formed engagements, let them be fulfilled with perfect good faith: — Here let us stop.
. . .It is our true policy to steer clear of permanent alliance with any portion of the foreign world.
. . .In the spirit of Washington, Carto contended that true nationalists — of all nations — believed in developing and strengthening their nation from within, maintaining the integrity of its cultural heritage and historic sovereign borders and placing their own nation’s interests first. Nationalists did not start wars of imperialism, he said, but respected the nationalist instincts of others.
. . .Profiteering internationalist plutocrats, Carto charged, condemned nationalism because it interfered with their goal of profit and their aim to submerge all nations in a “Global Plantation” under their domination.
. . .In Carto’s estimation, internationalism was a dream of naive idealists that the eradication of all national and racial borders will usher in world peace in which everyone will live happily ever after — a chimerical dream of poets and religious leaders for millennia.
. . .In actual application, Carto averred, internationalism could only produce mass confusion, tension, anarchy and violence. Plutocrats used internationalism to break down national boundaries and promote multiculturalism, an essential step to complete their conquest of the world and the formal erection of their world super state, the Global Plantation, often called a “New World Order”— by both the nationalists and the internationalists.
. . .Carto put it simply: the concept of a New World Order is no less than the drive for a world government directed by the plutocrats who see it as a way to capture all of the natural resources of the globe and to effectively enslave all of the people under an international bureaucracy chosen and controlled by the financial elite.
. . .In any event, Carto’s influence in shaping the philosophical foundation of the American nationalist movement was (and is) beyond question. In fact, when longtime Republican Party figure Pat Buchanan — the syndicated columnist — began emerging as a serious, high-profile critic — from a nationalist perspective — of the growing internationalist bent within Republican ranks, major media voices throughout the land acknowledged — albeit grudgingly — that it had been Carto and Liberty Lobby that helped pave the way for Buchanan’s ascension.

. . .It was Pat Buchanan — formerly a “mainstream” figure — who began echoing the rhetoric and historical foundation that had been preserved through Carto’s earlier work, and thereby brought at least a Buchanan version of “nationalism” into the American political arena as he made successive bids for the Republican Party’s presidential nomination. As early as June 26, 1995, the progressive weekly, The Nation, began taking note of the new populism and nationalism that was driving the Buchanan campaign. Describing a Buchanan rally in New Hampshire, The Nation pointed out that:
When asked to cite what issue most moves them about Buchanan, a number of [them] referred to the economic nationalism of his crusades against NAFTA and GATT. Buchanan has howled about trade pacts that benefit transnational corporations at the expense of American workers and surrender U.S. sovereignty to a not-to-be-trusted international establishment, thus melding populism of the left and right.

The Nation explored Buchanan’s new emphasis further:
. . .It was in New Hampshire that Buchanan’s economic populism first stirred. When he campaigned in the state in 1992, he encountered people socked by recession.
. . .Buchanan had been propelled into that race by his far-right disgust at President Bush’s decision to sign a civil rights measure and to renege on the read-my-lips declaration [against new taxes]. But while trudging through the Granite State, Buchanan discovered economic dislocation — hardworking Americans hurled out of well-paying jobs. The fault, he concluded, lay with globalization and U.S. trade policies.
. . .Since then he has assailed the big banks and corporations that seek these jobs-exporting trade agreements and that finance a slew of lobbyists who guarantee that the trade deals slide through Congress. He is the only Republican contender to acknowledge and address the decline in real wages that has hit middle-income America.
. . .In doing so, Buchanan adds fresh troops to the social conservatives in his “Buchanan Brigades.” Mad at the Japanese? Outraged your child can’t pray in school? Buchanan is out there welding constituencies.
. . .Alone in the GOP, he attacks Washington as both the Establishment that promotes a liberal secular order and the Establishment that pushes the corporatist New World Order. Though also a fierce Catholic foot soldier in service to a conservative social and religious Establishment, Buchanan is the closest thing to a genuine populist in the 1996 race so far.
. . .The political “right” also stood up and took notice of Buchanan’s apparent shift. On November 27, 1995 the “conservative” Weekly Standard — financed by billionaire Rupert Murdoch, and edited by one William Kristol, leader of the self-styled clique of “neo-conservatives” enamored with nothing less than advancing a Zionist-dominated American imperialism — raised its own concerns about Buchanan’s nationalist broadsides against the power elite. The Standard asserted:
. . .In an increasingly conservative America, one political figure defiantly resists the historical tide. This man still denounces big banks and multinational corporations. Still unabashedly puts the interests of the American factory worker ahead of those of the so-called international tradingsystem. Still refuses even to contemplate any cuts in the generosity of big middle-class spending programs like Medicare and Social Security. This man is Patrick J. Buchanan, America’s last leftist . . .
. . .Noting that Buchanan retained his traditional stance on social issues, The Standard then pointed out that:
. . .His campaign speeches stress arresting new themes: the imminent menace of world government, the greed of international banks, the power of tariffs to stop the deterioration in blue-collar wages, the urgency of preserving Medicare in something close to its present form.
. . .This isn’t anything remotely like the conservative Republicanism of the Reagan era. What it sounds very much like instead is the militant, resentful rhetoric roared by populist Democrats from William Jennings Bryan onward. The revulsion contemporary Democrats feel for Buchanan only exposes how far that party has drifted from its own past.
. . .The Standard charged that Buchanan had abandoned the “traditional” stands of conservative Republicans and had begun to shift (or at least attempt to shift) the Republican Party in a nationalist direction:
. . .The important question for traditional conservative Republicans is how far Mr. Buchanan should be permitted to take the party. The success of Buchanan’s 1992 campaign has already begun to redirect the Republican Party to a more restrictive position on immigration and a much harder line on affirmative action . . .
. . .Should he be welcomed or not? In 1992, many conservatives suffered excruciating difficulty in deciding . . .This time, though, the choice ought to be easier. Conservatives need to recognize that Buchanan’s politics is . . . something new: a populism formed to seize the political opportunities presented by strident multiculturalism and stagnating wages for less-skilled workers . . .
. . .As things are going, it is likely only a matter of time before Buchanan himself recognizes the rapidly mounting distance between his politics and those of mainstream conservatism. His friend and fellow columnist Sam Francis, whose ideas Mr. Buchanan has increasingly echoed, has already dropped the word “conservative” outright. The danger is not so much that Buchanan will hijack conservatism as that, even after he charges out of it on is way toward some unscouted ideological destination of his own, his statist and populist ideas will seep backward into it . . .
. . .At this juncture, the Murdoch-financed voice for internationalism formally declared war on Buchanan and read him out of the ranks of “conservative” Republicans:
. . .Buchanan has never shied from a fight, and neither should those Republicans who oppose him. Republicans who hold fast to the traditions of postwar conservatism that Buchanan is rejecting — small government and American global leadership — should make clear that they understand as well as Buchanan does the immense difference between his politics and theirs. He has turned his back on the fundamental convictions that have defined American conservatism for 40 years, and conservatives shouldn’t be afraid to say so. After all, to paraphrase Ronald Reagan, it isn’t we who have left Pat Buchanan; it is Pat Buchanan who is leaving us.
. . .In other words, Pat Buchanan, if elected president, would take the Republican Party out of the internationalist camp and that’s the last thing this “conservative” voice wanted to happen.
. . .Ultimately, of course, Buchanan left the Republican Party and opted to run — in 2000 — as the candidate of the Reform Party. However, when all was said and done, the Buchanan Movement failed — and failed badly. The American nationalist movement was dealt a harsh electoral blow with Buchanan’s devastatingly poor showing in that election. Nationalists were left holding the bag as Buchanan moved back into the world of big-time media punditry. In the meantime, the nationalist movement — the real nationalist movement — seeks not only rejuvenation, but leadership.
. . .Ironically, the greatest force standing against traditional American nationalism happens to be Zionism. Although Zionism is, in itself, defined as Jewish Nationalism, aimed at the establishment of a Jewish State, which, in fact, ultimately emerged in 1948 with the founding of Israel, the truth is that Zionism is essentially an international movement of vast scope and power with Israel serving as hardly more than its spiritual (albeit geographically specific) capital.

. . .In that regard, in this author’s previous work, The New Jerusalem, we explored the striking reality that, for all intents and purposes, the Zionist movement has essentially adopted the United States — through sheer force of financial and political power — as its primary base of operations, using the American military (generally against the wishes of the military leadership) to enforce a global imperium designed to advance the power of Israel (and the Zionist agenda) on the world stage. (...)

Willis A. Carto - Populism vs plutocracy
The universal struggle
What is populism ?
All the politicians today want to be called “populists.”
And the media is constantly talking about populism.
But what exactly is a populist? What is populism?
Populism vs Plutocracy: The Universal Struggle is the only complete record of the history of American populism, as embodied in the lives of America’s populist heroes and statesmen...
Edited by W. A. Carto, this unique work shows that populism is much more than a counterfeit label for demagogic politicians to sew on their tattered and soiled garments. Populism has profoundly significant meaning to the people of America and the world. Today with communism as an ideology rightly perceived as failed and discredited, populism stands, taller than ever, as the only obstacle in the path of plutocrats who seek to reduce all of the people of the world to economic and political slavery under a Global Plantation. Thus the populist alternative is a critical subject.
In these pages are colorful biographies of some of America’s best-known populists (and some not so well-known) with emphasis on the populist philosophy that guided them in the public arena...
Do you know who these great populist figures are?
  • Two American presidents (See Chapter I and Chapter II)
  • Two of America’s most powerful newspaper publishers (See Chapter VI and Chapter X)
  • Two of the most influential (and controversial) American men of letters: Ezra POUND and Robert TAFT (See Chapter XI and Chapter XIII)
  • The greatest inventor in modern history (See Chapter HI)
  • A Catholic priest (See Chapter XVII)
  • An industrial giant—a household name (See Chapter VII)
These are just a handful of the fascinating subjects profiled in this momentous volume that is so timely and needed...
About the editor : Willis A. Carto, a native of Indiana, is best known as the founder and treasurer of Liberty Lobby, the Washington, D.C. based populist Institution (established in 1955). Carto is also the publisher of The Barnes Review, a monthly historical journal with readers in 31 nations around the globe. | Author: Willis A. Carto

THE BARNES REVIEW | Populism vs. Plutocracy: The Universal Struggle
Willis A. Carto $22.00 Item # 122                     
Is the only complete record of the history of American populism, as embodied in the lives of America’s populist heroes. Edited by Willis Carto, the founder of Liberty Lobby, this unique work shows that populism is much more than a counterfeit label for demagogic politicians to sew on their tattered and soiled garments. Today, with communism rightly perceived as failed and discredited, populism stands as the only obstacle in the world to economic and political slavery in a Global Plantation.
Hardback 290 pages
AMAZON | Populism Vs Plutocracy: The Universal Struggle by Willis Carto
This review is from: Populism vs. Plutocracy: The Universal Struggle (Hardcover)
"And when he was come into Jerusalem, Jesus went into the temple, and cast out all them that sold and bought in the temple, and overthrew the tables of the money-changers." - Matthew 21.10-12_Populism vs. Plutocracy: The Universal Struggle_ is an updated edition of _Profiles in Populism_ edited by Willis A. Carto of the Liberty Lobby which expounds the populist political philosophy for the American nation by offering small profiles of some of the greatest historical populist figures. Many politicians of today claim the populist label; however, as this volume shows few among the Establishment's figures fully understand this political philosophy. Populism is opposed to both monopoly capitalism, high finance, the Federal Reserve banking system, as well as communism and socialism. Populism also argues for an America First, nationalist and non-interventionist, foreign policy of armed neutrality, as opposed to the internationalist policies of both so called "right" and left wing elites. Populism also suggests a scientific tariff system, opposing free trade, to reduce unfair competition from foreign industry, as well as restrictions on immigration from the Third World. Populism also sees the importance of Western civilization (despite its apparent decline into decadence and immorality) against encroaching alien influences and the ever broadening New World Order program of the elite. Against such mattoid criminals as Karl Marx, John D. Rockefeller, and agents for global Zionism, populism maintains the interest of the common American working man and the agrarian farmer. This volume features profiles of various figures transcending both political parties (Republican and Democrat) who have at times espoused elements of the populist philosophy. These include President and agrarian democrat Thomas Jefferson, populist President Andrew Jackson and opponent to the federal bank, inventor Thomas Edison, Senator Robert LaFollette, Senator Thomas Watson, press lord William Randolph Hearst, American industrialist Henry Ford, California progressive Hiram Johnson, "Alfalfa Bill" William Murray, newspaper publisher Robert R. McCormick, columnist and wit H. L. Mencken, Senator Burton K. Wheeler, poet Ezra Pound, Representative Hamilton Fish, Senator George W. Malone, Roman Catholic priest Father Charles Coughlin, Senator Huey Long, populist intellectual Lawrence Dennis, Col. Charles A. Lindbergh, and Mayor Frank Rizzo. Many of these populists remained resolute in their opposition to American involvement in the First and Second World Wars as well as to unfair income taxation which is used as a weapon by the ultra-rich against the middle class. This book contains many insights into the nature of American politics, where our wealth and resources are continually plundered by robber barons to be pawned off to the Third World through war and "relief efforts". Today, the political Establishment acts in complete opposition to the populist philosophy attempting to censor it where it is found. If one wishes to see through the propaganda machine that currently exists as a smokescreen over America, it is necessary to read books such as this which reveal America's true nationalist tradition.

U.S. should be the world’s policeman
When there is no effective alternative, democratic countries have an ethical and humanitarian duty to threaten to use military force and, if there is no other option, to actually use it.
HAARETZ By | Sep. 23, 2013 | 6:08 AM | 15
U.S. President Barack Obama delivers remarks at the Congressional Black Caucus Foundation, Inc., September 21, 2013. Photo by AFP
The United States should not be the world's policeman, or so U.S. President Barack Obama argued in his address to the nation on September 10, in which he explained his position on military intervention in the Syrian civil war. The president is wrong. In light of the history and doctrine of the use of force and military intervention, the United States, along with other enlightened democracies in possession of military might, should and must be the world's policeman.
The horrors of World War II taught us certain lessons. One led to the formation of the United Nations, for the purpose of preserving world peace and creating a mechanism for dialogue among states. Another resulted in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, which eventually gave rise to binding international treaties meant to protect human rights. But some questions remain: Do the lofty goals that inspired the establishment of the United Nations mean that the international community has a duty to intervene and raise the alarm in the event of the commission of war crimes or the use of weapons of mass destruction? (...)
It is legitimate to question whether intervention might lead to international escalation. Nevertheless, isolationism in cases where intervention is a moral necessity is supposed to be a thing of the past, of a time when states did not want to get bogged down in distant countries even in the event of war crimes. If this attitude becomes prevalent once again, it will be to the detriment of the entire world. It goes without saying that diplomacy, itself a form of intervention, is preferable as long as it is effective and not a kind of Munich Pact, as U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry noted in reference to Syria.
At the end of the day, America, together with other strong democratic countries, is indeed supposed to be the world's policeman - insofar as it is acting on behalf of the fundamental principles on which the United Nations was founded, even when political exigencies preclude obtaining UN approval. When there is no effective alternative or pressure must be exerted to kick-start diplomacy, democratic countries have an ethical and humanitarian duty to threaten to use military force and, if there is no other option, to actually use it. Proportionally, of course, but also effectively, in compliance with the two leading criteria of military law.
The writer is a former legal adviser to the Defense Ministry.
Who was the most pro-Jewish U.S. president? Woodrow Wilson, obviously

A new biography of the 28th American president depicts him as an idealist Democrat whose moral and political influence still reverberates today. Haaretz talks to its author, A. Scott Berg.
HAARETZ By | Sep. 25, 2013 | 6:00 PM 4
(...) Obama's address included more than faint echoes of another principled Democrat intent on transforming American society and the world beyond it: Woodrow Wilson, the 28th president of the United States, and the man who led his country into the First World War. (...)
However, in A. Scott Berg's biography, "Wilson" (Putnam Press), the book's namesake emerges as a formidable statesman, one who has influenced the decision-making of every American president since his tenure.
Berg, the Pulitzer Prize-winning biographer of Charles Lindbergh and Hollywood producer Samuel Goldwyn, sat down with Haaretz to discuss Wilson's legacy and its effect on modern politics and the Obama administration's policies – and why Wilson is what he calls the most pro-Jewish president in American history.
Why is the Wilson presidency so relevant to the Obama presidency?
"Wilson is the father of America's modern foreign policy. For 125 years, the U.S. was an introverted nation that clung on to its isolationism. Wilson posed the question: What is America's role in the world? And the answer he gave, in his speech to Congress on April 2, 1917, asking the legislature to declare war on Germany, was that it is America's duty to ensure "the world must be safe for democracy." This credo has been espoused, for good and bad, by every president since Wilson, most recently by Barack Obama.
"Wilson was the most idealistic of America's presidents. He spoke often and eloquently about America's moral obligation. He wed idealism with interventionism. He urged his countrymen to fight preemptively for principles, instead of retaliating for attacks against them. And he obliged the U.S. to assist all peoples in pursuit of freedom and self-determination. Obama has fully embraced this moralism, most recently, when he sought congressional approval to punish Syria for its deadly use of chemical weapons. In fact, listening to his speech [on Syria], I thought Obama's ideas and phraseology were ripped right out of Wilson's playbook."
In late 1917, the British Government asked President Wilson to support a declaration of sympathy with the Zionist movement.
"And he did. Wilson supported the Balfour Declaration – 'the establishment in Palestine of a national home for the Jewish people.' He did so despite the advice of his most trusted confidante, Col. Edward House, who acted as America's first national security adviser. You must remember that, at the time, the U.S. was an extremely anti-Semitic country,so expressing support for the Balfour Declaration was a very courageous act.
"Wilson was the most Christian president the U.S. has ever had. He was the son and grandson of Presbyterian ministers; he prayed on his knees twice a day and read the Bible every night. But he was also the most pro-Jewish president the U.S. has ever had. He appointed the first Jew to the Supreme Court, Louis Brandeis, a fervent Zionist, who counseled Wilson about the Balfour Declaration, and who would go on to champion an individual's right to privacy and free speech. He brought the financier Bernard Baruch into government, and he appointed Henry Morgenthau as the ambassador to the Ottoman Empire during the First World War.
"Earlier, as president of Princeton University, Wilson appointed the first Jew to the faculty, and as governor of New Jersey, prior to becoming president, he appointed the first Jew to the state's Supreme Court." 

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

Bref, l'article se termine sur la peur des juifs que les USA abandonnent leur rôle de POLICE MONDIALE...



 Sur ce blog:

Assassinat de JFK: rien à voir avec le décret 11110 et la Réserve Fédérale

L'assassinat de JFK: une décision de l'administration Ben-Gourion

Flashback: Kadhafi dénonçait le rôle central d'Israël dans l'assassinat de JFK

In memoriam - JFK

Israël admet que le producteur du JFK d'Oliver Stone, Arnon Milchan, était un agent du Mossad

Décès du légendaire journaliste télé Walter Cronkite selon qui "aucun groupe -- à l'exception des renseignements israéliens -- aurait pu dissimuler aussi longtemps le complot pour assassiner JFK"

Flashback: Notre première liste d'antisémites (mise à jour)

Ron Paul explique le non-interventionnisme dans les affaires étrangères

FDR a tout fait pour empêcher une résolution pacifique du conflit

Comment le Lend-Lease de FDR a sauvé l'Union Soviétique

Michael Scheuer explique le non-interventionnisme

Le vol des brevets allemands et Paperclip

L'auteur et éditeur vétéran Willis Carto explique le contrôle sioniste des médiats (Bronfman, etc.)

Après JFK et Obama, au tour de l'Onu de demander à Israël d'ouvrir ses installations nucléaires aux inspections

2016 - Obama's America: le tout dernier film du producteur mormon oscarisé pour La Liste de Schindler

Simulacre de procès et torture à Nuremberg

"Je suis un sénateur états-unien, pas un sénateur israélien". Le nouveau secrétaire à la Défense d'Obama, couvert de crachats et de malédictions par le lobby juif

Le président Obama sur la même ligne que le l'ex-directeur de l'Unité de traque de Ben Laden à la CIA, Michael Scheuer: "peu importe qu'Israël survive ou pas".

Sous l'admin Obama, coup de filet de l'IRS contre l'évasion fiscale vers les banques israéliennes (mis à jour 20 mai 2013)

NYTimes: 16 agences US de renseignement confirment que l’Iran n’a pas la bombe

Chavez n'est plus: les nationalistes et les socialistes du monde entier savent à qui profite la mort de ce grand homme 

Adolf Le Grand diffamé par des "nationalistes"...

Staline lucide

Le mouvement juif néoconservateur: du trostskisme au bellicisme sioniste

Le jeu des comparaisons: l'islamisme radical est-il plus proche du "nazisme" ou des "Inglourious Basterds"?
Bernays, working for the administration of Woodrow Wilson during World War I with the Committee on Public Information, was influential in promoting the idea that America's war efforts were primarily aimed at “bringing democracy to all of Europe". Following the war, he was invited by Woodrow Wilson to attend the Paris Peace Conference in 1919.
Making the World “Safe for Democracy”: Woodrow Wilson Asks for War
Making the World Safe for Democracy – April 2, 1917,Woodrow Wilson’s War Message
"Autocratie militaire" = méchante Allemagne