Blog

Tensions Between US/NATO & Russia Are Flaring Dangerously

A cornered bear will ultimately use its claws
Friday, June 17, 2016, 4:16 PM
, ,

As if there weren’t enough crises to worry about in the world already, from shooting rampages to accelerating species loss, the US and NATO continue to ‘poke the bear’ and risk an outbreak of war with Russia.

I wish this were idle speculation. But if you haven’t been paying close attention, you'll probably be shocked at just how much direct military and diplomatic provocation has been going on between NATO/US and Russia over the past several years -- and in recent weeks, in particular.

Even more shocking is that no one in power can provide us with a compelling reason for exactly why these tensions are flaring. It seems that Russia’s main sin is in not entirely, completely and immediately giving the US/NATO anything and everything they request.

In other words, it’s imperial hubris and petulance that seems to be driving the ship of state. That’s a dangerous thing.

I’ve written extensively on the dangers of war with Russia as my concerns have mounted ever since the situation in Ukraine devolved in 2014.

There have been plenty of chances to dial down the rhetoric and mend fences, but they've all come and gone without healing. In fact, as we detail below, quite the opposite has happened. 

The bottom line is this: If you're not already mentally and physically prepared for the prospect of a NATO/US war with Russia, you really should be.

Perhaps the chances of outright war are still low on a relative scale, but the costs would be catastrophically high -- making this worthy of your attention. A low risk of a catastrophic outcome is the very reason we all buy insurance – life, auto, and home.  Not because we wish things to go wrong in our lives, but because they sometimes do nonetheless.

A Russian Warning

The list of aggressive provocations by NATO that have been received as belligerent acts by Russia is quite long. It stretches back several years and continues to grow rapidly, making the chance for an ‘accident’ or unplanned incident quite high.

I was impressed with a recent piece penned and signed by eight prominent writers and blogger with Russian heritage. Titled A Russian Warning, it ran on a wide variety of blogs knowledgeable about the Russian situation including Dmitry Orlov’s and The Saker’s. I encourage you to read the whole thing. Right now, if you've got the time. I can wait.

To cut to the chase, the harsh conclusion of the piece is this: If there is going to be a war with Russia, then the United States will most certainly be destroyed, and most of us will end up dead.”

Russia is, of course, a major nuclear power with a long history of surviving being attacked by outsiders. But for some reason, US/NATO military and diplomatic efforts have all been geared at further encroaching upon and/or isolating Russia.

They note:

The US leadership has done everything it could to push the situation to the brink of disaster. First, its anti-Russian policies have convinced the Russian leadership that making concessions or negotiating with the West is futile. It has become apparent that the West will always support any individual, movement or government that is anti-Russian, be it tax-cheating Russian oligarchs, convicted Ukrainian war criminals, Saudi-supported Wahhabi terrorists in Chechnya or cathedral-desecrating punks in Moscow.

Now that NATO, in violation of its previous promises, has expanded right up to the Russian border, with US forces deployed in the Baltic states, within artillery range of St. Petersburg, Russia’s second-largest city, the Russians have nowhere left to retreat. They will not attack; nor will they back down or surrender.

Imagine for a moment that Russia had positioned its military less than 100 miles from New York City and installed armored battalions with artillery. How would we in the US respond to that provocation? Probably with outrage, anger and defiance -- and rightly so. So why are we expecting Russia to act any differently?

The conclusion:

The sole reason why the USA and Russia have found themselves on a collision course, instead of defusing tensions and cooperating on a wide range of international problems, is the stubborn refusal by the US leadership to accept Russia as an equal partner: Washington is dead set on being the “world leader” and the “indispensable nation,” even as its influence steadily dwindles in the wake of a string of foreign policy and military disasters such as Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya, Syria, Yemen and the Ukraine.

Continued American global leadership is something that neither Russia, nor China, nor most of the other countries are willing to accept. This gradual but apparent loss of power and influence has caused the US leadership to become hysterical; and it is but a small step from hysterical to suicidal. America’s political leaders need to be placed under suicide watch.

The summary here is that Russia feels surrounded by an increasingly belligerent NATO/US military presence. It can find little common ground with diplomats from NATO generally and the US specifically. If fully backed into a corner, once it perceives it is out of other options, Russia will defend herself. I’m not sure how anybody could deny or begrudge her that right.

If the West, meaning the US and Europe, decide to further goad Russia, war is likely inevitable. (I'm leaning heavily here on the historically-dependable formula: Time + Shit Happens = Conflict).  Sooner or later, Russia will have to switch from response mode to reaction mode. I’ve written about that precition here, here and here.

The Provocations – Neocon Central

Here’s a very short and incomplete list of the provocations that have been undertaken against Russia. Again, just try to imagine what the reaction would be by the West were the roles reversed:

2014

2015

In return, Russia has been busy fighting its ‘isolation’ by inkling major energy deals, openly testing its nuclear weapons platforms, and railing against the double standards of the West:

You get the idea: both sides are settling into a pattern of escalating responses. The trajectory is alarming.

What's alarming is the above selection of headlines is a miniscule sampling of the possible ones I could have picked. The evidence is everywhere.

Now let’s fast forward to 2016 where things are really heating up.

2016

The US and NATO have been putting increasing emphasis on placing more military hardware and training exercises in the Baltic and Black seas as well as the Mediterranean ocean.  In one incident, Russian jets flew within yards of a key US naval asset over and over again in a provocation that John Kerry said the US “would have been justified” in shooting those jets down.

U.S. issues formal protest to Russia over Baltic Sea incident

Apr 14, 2016

(CNN) White House Press Secretary Josh Earnest says the U.S. Embassy in Moscow has communicated formal concerns to the Russian government about the incident in the Baltic Sea this week in which fighter jets flew very close to the USS Donald Cook.

A U.S. official described the Russian maneuver as "strafing runs" without firing any weapons. The unarmed Russian aircraft swooped in over the deck in the same flight profile that would have been used if an attack was underway.

(Source)

Here’s a video of that flyby:


And, no, the US would not have been justified in shooting down those Russian jets. Kerry is being clearly belligerent with that statement.

A more level response comes to us from a retired Navy commanding officer:

“Well, we’re not at war with Russia," Capt. Rick Hoffman said. "It would be one thing to be operating and have a threatening attack profile from someone who might not recognize me — that’s not the case here.”

If you have visual identification of the jet, can see it isn't carrying weapons, and don't detect any electronic emissions suggesting there was a missile lock on the ship, there's nothing to be done.

And ultimately, the rules of engagement allow the CO to take defensive action if they feel they safety of their vessel is in danger, according to U.S. European Command spokesman Capt. Danny Hernandez told Navy Times. In this case the CO did not feel threatened, he added.

"You don’t get to kill people just because they’re being annoying," said Hoffman, who commanded frigate DeWert and cruiser Hue City.

(Source – Navy Times)

Thankfully there are saner minds in the military, even if the State Department is itching for a fight.

Which brings us to the most insane head scratcher of them all.

State Department Loses Its Cool

In yesterday’s Wall Street Journal (6/16/2016) came the bizarre revelation that 51 internal State Department officials signed a document protesting Obama’s lack of direct military engagement with Assad’s government forces in Syria:

U.S. State Department Officials Call for Strikes Against Syria’s Assad

Jun 16, 2016

BEIRUT—Dozens of State Department officials this week protested against U.S. policy in Syria, signing an internal document that calls for targeted military strikes against the Damascus government and urging regime change as the only way to defeat Islamic State.

The “dissent channel cable” was signed by 51 State Department officers involved with advising on Syria policy in various capacities, according to an official familiar with the document. The Wall Street Journal reviewed a copy of the cable, which repeatedly calls for “targeted military strikes” against the Syrian government in light of the near-collapse of the ceasefire brokered earlier this year.

(Source)

Now just reflect on that a moment. But as you do, be sure to recall that Russia is fighting alongside Assad’s forces. In other words, these State Department officials are asking for military action to be taken against Syria's allied forces fighting to preserve the current government’s hold on power.

In other words, there are 51 insane people (a least) in the US State Department that think attacking Russia directly would be a swell idea. All in the interest of promoting a foreign policy of regime change that has not worked out well in the Mideast countries where we've recently tried it. Iraq and Libya are unmitigated disasters, especially for the citizens left living with the aftermath.

I would certainly love to know the names of those 52 individuals. I'd bet good money that the list is heavily stocked with neocons.

Also be sure to recall that Russia moved the s400 antiaircraft missile system into Syria last year. This battery is widely respected and feared by pilots due to its enormous reach:

(Source)

So not only are these State Department folks agitating for direct military engagement with Russian forces by agitating for US airstrikes against Syrian targets, they are seemingly either unaware of or uncaring about the extreme risk US pilots would face in trying such a move.

Most likely the US would lose a fair number of planes if such action was attempted. I suspect, though, that would play to the hands of the neocons at State. Dead heroes would provide exactly the sort of justification they’d need to expand the war they’ve been itching for all along.

But just in case a regular shooting war doesn't break out, NATO is busy laying the groundwork to justify one along other channels.

Expanding the Definition of “War”

Recently, NATO has expanded the definition of "war". Let’s remember that NATO exists as a collective defense treaty organization. An attack on one member country is treated an attack on all.  NATO allies are obligated to come to each other’s defense.

Here’s the language:

Collective defence - Article 5

(Last updated Mar 2016)

The principle of collective defence is at the very heart of NATO’s founding treaty. It remains a unique and enduring principle that binds its members together, committing them to protect each other and setting a spirit of solidarity within the Alliance.

  • Collective defence means that an attack against one Ally is considered as an attack against all Allies.
  • The principle of collective defence is enshrined in Article 5 of the Washington Treaty.
  • NATO invoked Article 5 for the first time in its history after the 9/11 terrorist attacks against the United States.
  • NATO has taken collective defence measures on several occasions, for instance in response to the situation in Syria and in the wake of the Russia-Ukraine crisis.
  • NATO has standing forces on active duty that contribute to the Alliance’s collective defence efforts on a permanent basis.

(Source)

Now you and I might think that, if one member nation were invaded, that would meet the definition of “war”. But NATO, clearly not happy with that limitation, has recently proposed expanding that to include – get this – cyberwarfare:

NATO adds cyber to operation areas

Jun 14, 2016

BRUSSELS (AP) — NATO agreed Tuesday to make cyber operations part of its war domain, along with air, sea and land operations, and to beef up the defense of its computer networks.

NATO Secretary-General Jens Stoltenberg said the decision to formally consider cyber operations a military domain is not aimed at any one country. He says the allies need to be able to better defend themselves and respond to attacks on their computer networks.

The decision has been long in coming, particularly amid rising tensions with Russia, which has proven its willingness to launch computer-based attacks against other nations.

Russian hackers have been blamed for a breach into an unclassified Pentagon computer network and for a breach of NATO's computer network two years ago.

In 2014, after years of debate, NATO finally agreed that a cyberattack could rise to the level of a military assault and could trigger the Article 5 protections, which allow the alliance to go to the collective defense of another member that has been attacked.

(Source)

Got that?  Now a cyberattack could be used as justification to invoke Article V and bind everyone to engage the enemy in an actual 'boots on the ground' war.

Now that makes sense on some level. After all if a hostile nation took down your electrical grid by a cyberattack (which is entirely possible, by the way), that would be a threat to national security.

But in this world of electronic cat and mouse, creating a false-flag cyberattack that seems to originate from a hostile country could be initiated from anywhere, including the “attacked” country.  But the time all that had been sorted out, the bullets would likely have already been flying.

Conclusion

OK, that was a lot to read through. Thanks for persisting to this point. The punchline to it all is: War with Russia is a distinct possibility, and US and NATO are increasing that risk through escalating provocation.

Should a war break out, it could be along a variety of dimensions which are outlined in Part II below.

For now, it should be (hopefully) sufficient for you to take the threat seriously and to make whatever provisions seem prudent to you. To my European readers, such preparations seem even more necessary because you will be close to the front lines of any direct, conventional hostilities that break out.

In Part 2: How To Prepare For War, we explain how conflict can take many forms: trade wars, energy wars, financial wars, cyberwar, shooting wars, and nuclear war. We lay out in great detail the steps we, as individuals, can do to prepare for each.

And fortunately, this preparation comes with an upside: as many of these precautions will be life-enhancing steps even if -- hopefully, if -- tensions de-escalate from here.

Click here to read Part 2 of this report (free executive summary, enrollment required for full access)

Endorsed Financial Adviser Endorsed Financial Adviser

Looking for a financial adviser who sees the world through a similar lens as we do? Free consultation available.

Learn More »
Read Our New Book "Prosper!"Read Our New Book

Prosper! is a "how to" guide for living well no matter what the future brings.

Learn More »

 

Related content

115 Comments

Arthur Robey's picture
Arthur Robey
Status: Diamond Member (Offline)
Joined: Feb 4 2010
Posts: 3936
Bankers Wars.
"There is too much loose talk nowadays about the danger of so much capital in the hands of a few men." -- Baron Alphonso Rothschild, 1892
 
 
Read more: www.whatreallyhappened.com http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/WRHARTICLES/allwarsarebankerwars.php#ixzz4BsFuegMh
pinecarr's picture
pinecarr
Status: Diamond Member (Offline)
Joined: Apr 13 2008
Posts: 2157
Another poke - Russian track & field team banned from Olympics

I heard this story while at the gym this afternoon, and just shook my head: "Vladimir Putin Says Russian Athletes’ Ban From Olympics Is Politically Motivated"

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/06/18/world/europe/putin-russia-olympics-doping.html

ST. PETERSBURG, Russia — Even before the announcement that Russia’s track and field team would be barred from the Summer Olympics in Rio de Janeiro, President Vladimir V. Putin was incensed.

He said Friday that the allegations of doping against his country’s athletes were part of a politically motivated “anti-Russia policy” by the West.

The use of performance-enhancing drugs in sports is a global problem, he said at an economic forum in St. Petersburg, and Russia has been unfairly singled out.

“This cannot be a foundation for building anti-Russia policy,” Mr. Putin said.

The Olympics ban, announced after the Russian president’s speech at the annual St. Petersburg International Economic Forum on Friday, is the latest setback to his efforts to shed Russia’s pariah status and win allies among European politicians.

After the announcement, Mr. Putin called the decision “unjust, of course,” saying that Russia was strengthening anti-doping controls and that athletes should bear personal responsibility for using performance-enhancing drugs. Punishing the whole team, he said, “doesn’t fit any norms of civilized behavior.”

efarmer.ny's picture
efarmer.ny
Status: Bronze Member (Offline)
Joined: Jan 7 2012
Posts: 54
Comparing Leaders

Ultimately this comes down to a former KGB agent vs a former community organizer. In that scenario, I think the winner is obvious.

jasonw's picture
jasonw
Status: Diamond Member (Offline)
Joined: Sep 17 2011
Posts: 1012
Maybe Good to be Banned?

From Zerohedge - read a comment that maybe is was one of many brilliant chess moves.   I don't think I would want to attend the 2016 Olympics.   http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2016-06-17/rio-declares-state-public-calamity-warns-total-collapse-security-health-and-transpor

alexwest's picture
alexwest
Status: Member (Offline)
Joined: Jan 19 2011
Posts: 1
here is the problem . its all bs..

#Russia feels surrounded by an increasingly belligerent NATO/US military presence
 
  here is the problem . its all bs..
 
  Russiais big.. 2d longest land borders in the world (after china).
  only problem is : ITS NOT  POSSIBLE TO ATTACK RUSSIA through land operation.
 
  you cant attack Russia on north borders (supply problems / climat)
  you cant  attack Russia from east, i dont think China will like it
  you cant  attack Russia through asian republics (former USSR parts), they are friendly to russia, ++ Kazachatan is too big too
  you cant attack Russia from south, Caucasus mountains between Black/ Caspian seas ++ Iran is pretty friendly
  you cant attack Russia through baltic states, supply issues ++ too small territory to make permanent base.
 
  only reasonable is western part, through ukraine/belaruss, but wait
 
  DIDN'T  SWEDEN'S KARL XI in 18cent , NAPOLEON in 19cent , HITLER in 20 cent, AND  MYRIAD LESSER FIGURES TRIED IT  OUT.. YES.. AND WHAT IS OUTCOME   THEY ARE ALL GONE,  AND RUSSIA IS STILL BIGGEST COUNTRY IN THE WORLD
 
  proud russian
 
 

thc0655's picture
thc0655
Status: Diamond Member (Offline)
Joined: Apr 27 2010
Posts: 1265
Here's some hope: German ForMinister calls BS on sabre rattling

http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2016-06-18/suddenly-nato-imploding-alliance-member-germany-slams-nato-warmongering-against-russ

And then everything imploded when none other than the Foreign Minister of NATO member Germany, Frank-Walter Steinmeier, criticized NATO for having a bellicose policy towards Russia, describing it as "warmongering", the German daily Bild reported. And just like that, the entire ficitional narrative of "innocent" NATO merely reacting to evil Russian provcations has gone up in flames.

As AFP adds, Steinmeier merely highlighted all those things which rational persons have known about for a long time, namely the deployment of NATO troops near borders with Russia in the military alliance's Baltic and east European member states. However, since it comes from a NATO member, suddenly one can't accuse Russian propaganda. In fact, NATO has absolutely no planned response to just this contingency.

"What we should avoid today is inflaming the situation by warmongering and stomping boots," Steinmeier told Bild in an interview to be published Sunday.

funglestrumpet's picture
funglestrumpet
Status: Bronze Member (Offline)
Joined: Jan 29 2011
Posts: 28
The Trident D5 weapon system

The Trident D5 weapon system has a C.E.P. that makes it an anti-nuclear deterrent because it is capable of destroying hardened Command, Control, Communication and Intelligence installations (many of which are sited in centres of population) that the enemy would need to launch a retaliation.

In short, if war breaks out, expect it to go nuclear from the outset and to be extensive in its targetting. - And may your God go with you, whatever you conceive it to be.

There is but one positive factor: such a conflict would generate a nuclear winter, which is about the only thing that might stop the abrupt climate change we are now experiencing and has a long way to go. Whichever way it all pans out, one thing is certain: in a few short years the human species, if it is exceptionally lucky, will be severely curtailed in its numbers. If is not so lucky, it will be no more than a memory. 

KugsCheese's picture
KugsCheese
Status: Diamond Member (Offline)
Joined: Jan 2 2010
Posts: 1269
Aliens

Just maybe a universal law, given the vast expanse of spaces and times, is that no "intelligent" life is given enough time to develop advanced technologies such as fusion energy.  This is hinted at by Biologic Laws and E=M*C^2.  Therefore, if this holds it is unlikely that alien communication is possible.   

Ivo's picture
Ivo
Status: Bronze Member (Offline)
Joined: Jan 26 2009
Posts: 71
state department officials resigned?

I can't find any mention of it online anymore, but if I remember correctly, a host of experienced state department officials resigned a few years ago and made a public statement about their concerns about the undiplomatic direction the department was taking. Does anyone remember this?

sheilagrace's picture
sheilagrace
Status: Member (Offline)
Joined: Aug 30 2015
Posts: 2
Tensions Between

Chris, I cannot thank you enough for having the courage and presence of mind to post this, especially to the permaculture community. Let’s do a review; permaculture is about Awareness of Water, Climate & Culture.  We deepen our Awareness when we understand; the Concepts & Themes in Design, observe Patterns in Nature, and move on to take action via - a well thought out Design.

When we become serious about practicing permaculture/regenerative ag in its entirety, we have the opportunity to move beyond our cultural paradigm of repeating cute phrases or focusing on specific techniques in a disconnected way. We have found that even in the Pc community, individuals have a difficult time letting go of this American Industrial Revolution consumerist meme.

Your synopsis is the most comprehensive take on the impending situation we have seen so far, and again thank you for taking the time to hash this out. We cannot practice Pc in a bubble.  Culture, our culture may have far more profound influences on the outcome of our designs than we know and attempting to follow the principals of Pc, without paying equal attention to the other paradigm of design (Capitalism/endless growth/Unipolar superiority) we miss the mechanisms of how the end of cheap oil, increased debt, globalization and wage class war are playing themselves out in a fully connected centralized system.

I would like to think that more permaculturists are aware of this, than those who are not. Positivism plays an essential role in how we think about reducing our dependency on the centralized system and increasing our willingness to work with Nature, not against her. Being enthusiastic after learning about something ‘new’ (Pc) doesn’t make it complete without then turning a mature eye and sober recognition of the present intentions by Washington Neocons to pursue the Monroe Doctrine at all costs. We can be positive and mature at the same time. We have more than enough information (Dmitry Orlov 5 Stages of Collapse), The Saker, John Micheal Greer, Gail Tverburg, and others) to think about how we may respond through our designs. As Dmitry points out; don’t panic, take stock, and do the next logical thing and I might point out; pay very close attention to the big pictures.

If we have the enthusiasm to observe the patterns in Nature, we can also have the courage to observe the patterns in our culture and our culture’s leaders. We can achieve common sense notions that a large energy sucking self-organized dissipative structure like the US cannot go on pulling in the amount of energy required to support growth at the same rate it practiced 50 years ago. Relevant patterns are directly related to this predicament; systematically crying wolf!, invading and bombing oil & resource rich countries, intentional creation of chaos, Bubbles & Busts, encouragement of demographic infighting, and  deliberate deceptive language of safety, security, freedom & democracy.

Doing more with less isn’t just some trite saying and I hope that persons, who are engaged in Pc, don’t follow the path of many liberal Americans who clamor for Change, but don’t want to change those things in their own lives (lifestyles of consumption). We can’t have our Earth and eat it too. We can learn to do with less, find creative ways to downscale and position ourselves as best as possible for an outcome we may not be able to control.  We can only educate others if we educate ourselves first.  

sheila

robie robinson's picture
robie robinson
Status: Diamond Member (Offline)
Joined: Aug 25 2009
Posts: 1041
We can’t have our Earth and eat it too

I love it!

sand_puppy's picture
sand_puppy
Status: Diamond Member (Offline)
Joined: Apr 13 2011
Posts: 1326
The SOUL of the Neocons

With some trepidation, I will make a pass at articulating my evolving impressions of the Soul of the Neocons.

Unfortunately, any attempt to discuss this topic is absolutely guaranteed to offend.  I don't know anyway around this.  Treasured identifications are threatened....  But the topic is SO important that it must be discussed.

I make no claims to understand everything correctly.  I am not a historian, political scientist, comparative religions scholar.  And I have not phrased everything correctly either.

I invite additional information.  (Please point to reading material so that I can learn more.)

--------------------------------------------

The Neocon/Zionists are one faction in the competition for global dominance.  Ordinarily, world dominance is primarily an ORANGE Meme activity.  But the Neocons have found a very effective angle giving this faction great success:  weaving in the (RED/BLUE) tribal loyalties and religious mythology of Judaism into what is fundamentally a military/economic domination project.

The Neocon/Zionist group functions as a crime family, somewhat like the Mafia. 

The Neocon faction is centered in the economic/political /military project called “Zionism.”  It begins by focusing on Israel, and expands to include the ascendance of Jewish and Israeli power-block on the entire world stage.

The Neocons have only a peripheral associated with the religion of Judaism as a number of the most prominent Neocon’s are “secular Jews,” many are declared atheists and agnostics and some are of non-Jewish.  Two qualities of Judaism are harnessed:  1.  Fierce tribal loyalty, and, 2.  Biblical mythology.  (I believe that this is the secret sauce of the Neocon’s significant success.)

The Neocons nurture and rely upon fiercely held Jewish tribal affiliation and loyalty. The wagons of tribal solidarity are kept circled tightly by the beliefs 1. special-status-in-the-eyes-of-God and 2.  perpetual persecution (also called perma-victim status).  Furthermore, Jewish and Christian peoples enjoy thy mythology of being promised a special place in the end times when God’s Kingdom comes to earth.

Tribal loyalty and cooperation has proven to be a powerful source of economic advantage to insiders.  The Jewish 3% of the US population has risen to hold 40% of the Forbes Richest 400 list. 

MYTHOLOGY

Though the Neocons may not be religious, they have found the biblical mythology of the Jewish religion useful.  For example, the agnostic first prime minister of Israel, David Ben-Gurion, believed that all Jews “must read the bible” and though he did not believe that God exists, he did believe that God had promised Israel to the Jews.

Isaiah 2:1-4 is taken as a biblically prophesy that in the last days the world would be united in a single world government in peace and prosperity and that this one world empire would be ruled from Jerusalem.  I suspect that this vision of the one-world government ruled from Jerusalem is the central motivating myth of the Zionist/Neocon faction and is the source of buy-in from so many Jewish people.

The Old Testament story of Joshua invading (“reclaiming”) the already occupied Promised Land seems to be a template for the modern Zionist approach to the Palestinians:

Before they enter the land, the Jewish people send an envoy to the Canaanites with the message, “God, the Creator of the Universe has promised this land to our forefathers. We are now here to claim our inheritance, and we ask you to leave peacefully.”  Meanwhile, Joshua has clear instructions from God that if the Canaanites don’t get out, the Jews must wipe them out.

EMPATHY

The cornerstone of Spiral Dynamics BLUE Meme mythic membership thinking is exaggerated closeness with in-group and antipathy to out-groups.   Though anti-Semitism is an often-mentioned form of bigotry, the other side of this coin, anti-goyism is just as real.   Many of actions of the Neocon/Zionists can only be understood if deep anti-goyism is assumed.

The Zionist/Neocons actors causing the greatest trouble hold an utter contempt for the lives of outsiders.  But they have learned how offensive and counter productive this attitude is when discussed publicly.  Anti-goyism is now held-close-to-the-chest and a liberal inclusive democratic face is worn in public.  Actions show the strength of the underlying attitude.  The practice of waging wars to “weaken” and fragment ME neighbor states has killed millions (including American soldiers.)  Yet the Neocons are not troubled by this and continue seeking greater and wider wars.

The apartheid social structures of the occupied regions of Palestine show the contempt for non-Jews.   Anna Baltzer interview of International Women’s Peace Studies:

Madeleine Albright demonstrates this attitude famously in her reply to the question posed by 60 Minutes’ Lesley Stahl about the effects of US sanctions against Iraq in May 1996.

“We have heard that a half million children have died [because of the sanctions],” stated Stahl. “I mean, that’s more children than died in Hiroshima. And, you know, is the price worth it?”

“I think this is a very hard choice,” replied Albright, “but the price–we think the price is worth it.”

In the same way that a farmer does not grieve when it is time to slaughter livestock, or a slave owner grieve when he has to execute a captured runaway slave, we do not empathize across powerfully held in-group / out-group boundaries.  They are “not like us.”  Ms. Albright did not give a rats-ass about the half million dead Iraqi children.  The Neocon/Zionists do not care about the lives or well being of non-Jewish neighbors in Lebanon, Syria, Iraq or the American's killed in the Twin towers or on the battlefield of Iraq.

Deliberately creating a harsh in-group/out-group boundary and vilifying the out-group is routinely used to stifle empathy in soldiers being sent to war.  Atrocity stories and derogatory labels induce the belief that “the enemy” are sub-human and vile so that we to feel OK about killing them.  They are “not like us.”

Sometimes an observed lack of empathy is mistaken for psychopathology, the hard-wired neurologic defect where an individual is incapable of any empathy.  But this is different.  The capacity for empathy does exist within the in-group.  It is just not available to those “subhuman and vile” out-groups.  This is the mind set from which “ethnic cleansing” and deeply segregated societies can arise.

SPECIFIC TECHNIQUES

1.  The strategy of Entryism, where members of a smaller group are sent to infiltrate a larger opposing group and gain control of it from the inside.  When done covertly, the strategy is difficult to detect.  The Neocon/Zionist infiltration of the White House, cabinet, pentagon, homeland security, judiciary and state department is a stunning example of successful covert entryism.  The US military was taken into major wars by the Neocon/Zionists without the awareness of most people that they control of national policy had be hijacked by this group.  The wars were blamed on “The Americans” and the fabricated intelligence explained as “Bush lied.”

2.   Control of the media through ownership.  The owner of a newspaper can set editorial policy for that paper.   When a group that is covertly allied owns a majority of media outlets, themes can be disseminated or suppressed in public discussion.  Similarly, the control of internet search engine ranking algorithms (Google) gives great influence over public discussion.  Rupert Murdoch and others are most famous for insisting that his media outlets will be used to serve Israel.   Much more effective are the covertly coordinated efforts where ownership is not known and coordination is not realized. 

3.  Moral relativism.  One set of moral principles applies to the rest of the world, but our group has a special relationship with God and operates by a higher and different set of moral principles.  We advocate you all have an open societies, but act to keep OUR nation ethnically pure.

4.  The Shepherd.  The shepherd embraces his rightful role as the leader and decision maker without ethical concerns for the free-will or sovereignty of the sheep.  “They are not like us.”  We were intended to lead, they, to follow.  When this moral framework is combined with accomplished social scientist and computer modeling skills, great social reengineering projects are possible.

5.  Leading from the number 2 position.  A figurehead, non-Jewish leader, helps to conceal the covert leadership embedded beneath.

6.  No legitimate criticism if Judaism, Israel or the Neocons is possible.  They are above all reproach and analysis.  Any discussion of this group is irrational bigotry. 

Reading list

I have tried to keep this post brief – a summary of impressions.  These impressions are gathered from reading.

  • Spiral Dynamics by Beck and Cowan
  • Laurent Guyenot’s many articles and “50 Years of the Deep State.”
  • Jewish Fundamentalism in Israel
  • Ken O’Keefe’s many lectures and interviews on youtube
  • Christopher Bollyn’s books and lectures.
  • The Israeli Lobby
  • Understanding Jewish Influence
  • Grand Deceptions by Brandon Martinez
  • Anna Baltzers excellent interview on the conditions of the Palestinians [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BIyJpW4F_1M ]
  • Alan Sabrosky’s talks and papers on 9/11 and Zionism
  • Kevin Barrett’s many lectures and commentary
  • Jim Lobe’s talks about the Neocons
  • Phillip Weiss’s website Mondoweiss.net
  • Tikkun Magazine
  • Articles by Kim Chernin published at Jewcy and Tikkun
  • Seymour Hersh, Glen Greenwald, etc., etc.
sand_puppy's picture
sand_puppy
Status: Diamond Member (Offline)
Joined: Apr 13 2011
Posts: 1326
Bob Moriarty of 321Gold Crushes the Neocons War Party

Bob Moriarty from 321Gold.com skewers the Neocons (the RED/BLUE Meme, Israel-first, war party whose agents who are tucked within controlling positions of western governments) and their role in creating the global chaos we are seeing.

In early summer of 2016 the world stands on a precipice looking down at a conflict that could easily lead to World War III. ...

In early 2014 the US sponsored a coup d’état in Ukraine replacing the legally elected government with their own specially selected thugs. US Assistant Secretary of State and Jewish Neocon Victoria Nuland... was quoted as saying, "Fuck the EU.”

Nuland went on later that year to brag about how the US had spent $5 billion to destabilize Ukraine..

... Nuland turned Ukraine into a Nazi run cesspool of corruption, blaming Putin the entire time.

A number of good and thoughtful writers have recently written convincing arguments that the US and NATO need to think about playing with fire lest they get burned. Those writers would include:

He talks about the Israeli Oded Yinon Plan to shatter Arab neighbors, the "Clean Break..." paper from the American/Israeli Neocons urging even more militant actions against Palestinians and Arab neighbors.

In America any person can be critical of Obama or Clinton, even the Pope or Buddha or Trump. You can say terrible things about Islam or Mormon or Catholics. You cannot be critical about Israel no matter how outrageous their behavior.

There is no actual prohibition against criticizing Israel except that which is within our own minds.  (To be sure, coordinated personal attacks by the Hasbara swarm can engender personal discomfort.)  But we are always free to speak the truth as we see it.

All of my Jewish friends and family are ORANGE Meme and GREEN and higher.  They actually already know that violence begets violence and that killing and beating down others is not effective at creating a stable better world.  They know that though deception (if believed) can offer short term advantage, eventually the lie is uncovered, creating a sense of betrayal and rage.  This approach just doesn't work.  (The conclusion that the Bibilcal RED/BLUE approach doesn't work marks the transition to the ORANGE paradigm and the emergence of an empathetic sense of being sickened at the slaughter of others for power and profit, the transition to GREEN.)

I pray that the ORANGE, GREEN and higher developmental paradigms will emerge into leadership roles in both Israel and in the US deep state, before it is too late.

Time2help's picture
Time2help
Status: Diamond Member (Offline)
Joined: Jun 9 2011
Posts: 2400
Israel should be deeply disturbed by Brexit vote

Israel should be deeply disturbed by the Brexit vote (Mondoweiss)

Quote:
Finally, it is worth noting that the trends underpinning the Brexit vote should disturb Israeli prime minister Benjamin Netanyahu, just as they already are troubling the political class in Europe and the US.

Like the EU, Israel too is vital pillar of the old global order. A “Jewish homeland” emerged under British protection while Britain still ran an empire and saw the Middle East as its playground.

After the European colonial powers went into abeyance following the Second World War, the role of patron shifted to the new global hegemon in Washington. The US has endlessly indulged Israel, guarded its back at the United Nations, and heavily subsidised Israel’s powerful military industries.

Whereas the US has propped up Israel diplomatically and militarily, the EU has underwritten Israel’s economic success. It has violated its own constitution to give Israel special trading status and thereby turned Europe into Israel’s largest export market. It has taken decades for Europe to even acknowledge – let alone remedy – the problem that it is also trading with illegal Jewish settlements in the West Bank.

If the EU starts to unravel, and US neoliberal hegemony weakens, Israel will be in trouble. It will be in desperate need of a new guarantor, one prepared to support a country that polls repeatedly show is mistrusted around the world.

But more immediately, Israel ought to fear the new climate of polarised, unpredictable politics that is becoming the norm.

In the US, in particular, a cross-party consensus about Israel is gradually breaking down. Concerns about local national interests – of the kind that exercised the Brexiters  – are gaining traction in the US too, as illustrated last year by the fallout over Israel’s stand-off with the White House over its Iran agreement.

Distrust of the political class is growing by the day, and Israel is an issue on which US politicians are supremely vulnerable. It is increasingly hard to defend Congress’ historic rock-solid support for Israel as truly in American interests.

In a world of diminishing resources, where the middle class is forever being required to belt-tighten, questions about why the US is planning to dramatically increase its aid to Israel – one of the few economies that has done well since the 2008 crash – are likely to prove ever-more discomfiting.

In the long term, none of this bodes well for Israel. Brexit is simply the warning siren.

sand_puppy wrote:
I pray that the ORANGE, GREEN and higher developmental paradigms will emerge into leadership roles in both Israel and in the US deep state, before it is too late.

This ^^^

badScooter's picture
badScooter
Status: Silver Member (Offline)
Joined: Jun 20 2011
Posts: 143
Trident D5

Funglestrumpet is correct about the D5 missile system (he already knows this).  The system will be used because it can take out hard targets such as in-silo launch systems, C3I, etc.  No SLBM prior to Trident could do that reliably.

It will get used if things get sketchy enough.

davefairtex's picture
davefairtex
Status: Diamond Member (Offline)
Joined: Sep 3 2008
Posts: 3945
one world government

SP-

Isaiah 2:1-4 is taken as a biblically prophesy that in the last days the world would be united in a single world government in peace and prosperity and that this one world empire would be ruled from Jerusalem.  I suspect that this vision of the one-world government ruled from Jerusalem is the central motivating myth of the Zionist/Neocon faction and is the source of buy-in from so many Jewish people.

I couldn't disagree more.  I believe you are overcomplicating things.  Israel is every Jewish person's go-to-hell plan.  If things turn to shit in their home country for Jews there, Israel will always accept them - even if they are not religious.  It is their one true port in the storm.  That's why there is so much support.

I imagine myself a Jew.  I check in with myself, and ask: "what part would Isaiah's prophecy play in my desire to support the state of Israel" I get only a small and very theoretical response.  If I asked, "this place is one country that would always accept me if anything got bad" (keeping in mind that, throughout history, things have tended to get bad for Jews - with the event 70 years ago being the biggest) I get a much, much larger internal emotional response.

The whole thing can be satisfactorily explained by doing "whatever it takes" to make sure the state of Israel survives.  Pre-WW2 there was a Zionist movement, but the whole movement gained a lot more urgency after Hitler tried killing all of them within reach.

I think if we keep it simple, we'll more closely approximate the truth.  Its about guilt, fear of persecution, and a strong desire that it not happen again.  That's quite enough to explain everything.

Time2help's picture
Time2help
Status: Diamond Member (Offline)
Joined: Jun 9 2011
Posts: 2400
Ok then...

davefairtex wrote:

I couldn't disagree more.  I believe you are overcomplicating things.  

davefairtex's picture
davefairtex
Status: Diamond Member (Offline)
Joined: Sep 3 2008
Posts: 3945
one world government?

TTH-

This looks like another WTC video.   What does it have to do with Isaiah and one world government?

sand_puppy's picture
sand_puppy
Status: Diamond Member (Offline)
Joined: Apr 13 2011
Posts: 1326
Thanks for opening up the topic

DaveF, I appreciate your being willing to open this topic.  The topic is complex (many faceted) and the limbic system is activated so often and so early.   We all come from different perspectives.  But it is important.

I would be very interested if some of my Jewish friends could speak to this issue too.

How about we narrow the issue:  We are discussing the need for Israel as a safe haven from persecution.

I have two impression:

1.  persecution, when it occurs repeatedly, has a reason.  The repeated victim is playing some role in the process.  (First time:  "Don't blame the victim."  Fifth, sixth and seventh times:  "It is time to look at how I get myself into this situation over and over.")

2.  the story of always-being-persecuted can be used to drive specific psychological processes.  Circling the wagons, solidifying intra-group allegiance.  It can also be used to justify violence against out-groups (because we were victimized first and harder).

I believe that both impressions 1 and 2 are very closely related. They are both the products and the results of BLUE Meme thinking where one's group identification (in vs out) is held as paramount. 

Paraphrasing Emerson:  "Your in-group / out group status is so central to my thinking that I can't see who you are." 

Contrast this with a GREEN Meme person, like Bernie Sanders for example, whose kindness and good will includes everyone with little attention of their group identification.  Bernie (I imagine) would be very unlikely to elicit persecution and unwilling to give preference and allegiance to his in-group or commit violence against out-groups.   Can you imagine Bernie bombing Canada to fragment it into French and English sections in order to improve the relative strength of the US?

Ethnocentrism is very problematic.

Ken Wilbur suggests first owning and honoring one's group identity.  Then, widening the circle of friendship to include more.

davefairtex's picture
davefairtex
Status: Diamond Member (Offline)
Joined: Sep 3 2008
Posts: 3945
one world government: again

SP-

The issue for me in your description was solely having to do with this "one world government" mind-picture you were painting, based on four lines from Isaiah.  It seemed not only a stretch - but a very, very big stretch to suggest "a one-world government ruled from Jerusalem" was the prime motivator for the depth of support for Israel in America.

Especially when the competing explanation is based on recent history, survival, and common sense.

Again, if your Isaiah Theory held water, Zionism would have happened long ago.  It was only after WW2 that Zionism was able to really catch on.  Why might that have been?  Hmm, perhaps it was something that happened immediately prior.

So if you're backing away from your Isaiah Theory, then I'm good.  We can move on to the "understanding persecution" phase once we put Isaiah to bed.

But if you still want to hang on to that as...how did you put that...

I suspect that this vision of the one-world government ruled from Jerusalem is the central motivating myth of the Zionist/Neocon faction and is the source of buy-in from so many Jewish people.

Yes, right.  This is where you just lose me.

So you still believe this?  Do you have any evidence that supports your suspicion?  Preferably, from the suspect group themselves?  Presumably this would not be a deep dark secret if it were truly a "central motivating myth" that had general buy-in.  Nazis didn't hide their central motivating myths.  That's because, if it is a secret, it can't be a central motivating myth for many people.

Edwardelinski's picture
Edwardelinski
Status: Gold Member (Offline)
Joined: Dec 23 2012
Posts: 263
The NY Times finally recognizes world order collapse:

A brilliant piece was published this morning by the times recognizing world order collapse.None of this will come as a surprise to regular readers here at the Peak.They did an outsanding job on the timelines.It really is a global revolution.We tend to only pay attention to the big dogs for direction.Just last Friday Italy,France and Spain suffered there worst stock market crashes in recorded history.Not a single mention in any American papers...Looks as if things are just getting started.At least this time we didn't start the fire!

pinecarr's picture
pinecarr
Status: Diamond Member (Offline)
Joined: Apr 13 2008
Posts: 2157
Maybe so...maybe not

Edwardlinski said:

At least this time we didn't start the fire!

Maybe so...maybe not.  I am not so sure after reading this, http://michael-hudson.com/2016/06/us-imperialism-the-brexit-culprit/

WILPERT: So let’s begin with the political context in which the Brexit vote took place. Aside from the right-wing arguments about immigrants, economic concerns, and about Britain’s ability to control its own economy, what would you say–what do you see as being the main kind of political background in which this vote took place?

HUDSON: Well, almost all the Europeans know where the immigrants are coming from. And the ones that they’re talking about are from the near East. And they’re aware of the fact that most of the immigrants are coming as a result of the NATO policies promoted by Hillary and by the Obama administration.

The problem began in Libya. Once Hillary pushed Obama to destroy Libya and wipe out the stable government there, she wiped out the arms–and Libya was a very heavily armed country. She turned over the arms to ISIS, to Al-Nusra, and Al-Qaeda. And Al-Qaeda used these arms under U.S. organization to attack Syria and Iraq. Now, the Syrian population, the Iraqi population, have no choice but to either emigrate or get killed.

So when people talk about the immigration to Europe, the Europeans, the French, the Dutch, the English, they’re all aware of the fact that this is the fact that Brussels is really NATO, and NATO is really run by Washington, and that it’s America’s new Cold War against Russia that’s been spurring all of this demographic dislocation that’s spreading into England, spreading into Europe, and is destabilizing things.

So what you’re seeing with the Brexit is the result of the Obama administration’s pro-war, new Cold War policy.

Edwardelinski's picture
Edwardelinski
Status: Gold Member (Offline)
Joined: Dec 23 2012
Posts: 263
Well done Pinecarr

Point taken..The tentacles are far reaching...

pinecarr's picture
pinecarr
Status: Diamond Member (Offline)
Joined: Apr 13 2008
Posts: 2157
I wish it weren't true Edwardelinski

I am ashamed of the destructive actions of our so called leaders in the aforementioned countries, and their apparent lack of concern for the negative consequences they have had on others. Brexit is at least a small (?) "silver lining".

sand_puppy's picture
sand_puppy
Status: Diamond Member (Offline)
Joined: Apr 13 2011
Posts: 1326
Brussels = NATO = (Washington + Neocons)

Thanks Pinecarr and Edwardelinski for these observations.  I'll just add one part to the Michael Hudson quote:

So when people talk about the immigration to Europe [resulting from NATO bombing the MENA], the Europeans, the French, the Dutch, the English, they’re all aware of the fact that this is the fact that Brussels is really NATO, and NATO is really run by Washington, and that it’s America’s new Cold War against Russia that’s been spurring all of this demographic dislocation that’s spreading into England, spreading into Europe, and is destabilizing things.

So what you’re seeing with the Brexit is the result of the Obama administration’s pro-war, new Cold War policy.

The war impetus for bombing the crap out of the MENA region and antipathy against Russia must include the Neocons.  (Remember Wesley Clark and the "7 countries in 5 years" and "nobody knows why.")

So the above formula should be amended to:

Washington's War Party = American(Western) MIIC + Israel-First Neocons

sand_puppy's picture
sand_puppy
Status: Diamond Member (Offline)
Joined: Apr 13 2011
Posts: 1326
Support for viewpoint

DaveF wrote:

I suspect that this vision of the one-world government ruled from Jerusalem is the central motivating myth of the Zionist/Neocon faction and is the source of buy-in from so many Jewish people.

....  Do you have any evidence that supports your suspicion?  Preferably, from the suspect group themselves? 

Several books offer the supporting thinking behind this impression. (Its not original with me.)  See the reading list at the bottom of my original post.  No quick answers.  I am talking about understanding the world view, motivation and fear and the myths and stories that support those world views.

  • Understanding Jewish Influence
  • 50 years of the Deep State
  • Grand Deceptions
  • The Transparent Cabal
  • Jewish Fundamentalism in Israel.
  • The Anna Baltzar Interview on her months in Palestine
  • The many discussions (one here) of the role that Zionist / Single-Issue-Israel-first donors play in American politics.

Again, most of my Jewish friends are ORANGE, GREEN and YELLOW and are NOT included in this analysis.  I'm talking about the Neocons who are trying to start a war with Russian or bomb some more in the ME.

I am not trying to give anyone a hard time.  I just want to understand this intensely destructive force at play in the global "Game of Thrones."

HughK's picture
HughK
Status: Platinum Member (Offline)
Joined: Mar 6 2012
Posts: 759
Critical research, please.

sand_puppy wrote:

DaveF wrote:

I suspect that this vision of the one-world government ruled from Jerusalem is the central motivating myth of the Zionist/Neocon faction and is the source of buy-in from so many Jewish people.

....  Do you have any evidence that supports your suspicion?  Preferably, from the suspect group themselves? 

Several books offer the supporting thinking behind this impression. (Its not original with me.)  See the reading list at the bottom of my original post.  No quick answers.  I am talking about understanding the world view, motivation and fear and the myths and stories that support those world views.

  • Understanding Jewish Influence
  • 50 years of the Deep State
  • Grand Deceptions
  • The Transparent Cabal
  • Jewish Fundamentalism in Israel.
  • The Anna Baltzar Interview on her months in Palestine
  • The many discussions (one here) of the role that Zionist / Single-Issue-Israel-first donors play in American politics.

Again, most of my Jewish friends are ORANGE, GREEN and YELLOW and are NOT included in this analysis.  I'm talking about the Neocons who are trying to start a war with Russian or bomb some more in the ME.

I am not trying to give anyone a hard time.  I just want to understand this intensely destructive force at play in the global "Game of Thrones."

Hi Sandpuppy,

While you seem to have dismissed me for some reason, my question remains the same: How do you deal with the fact that some of your most important sources are not only clearly bigoted but also not based on facts, but rather are full of opinion based declarative statements?  

And in my first post on this, I also did not word my question correctly, so sorry for that.  In other words, I don't think that you are anti-Semitic, but I do think that you have bought into an anti-semitic body of so-called scholarship.  And, to be clear, this does not mean that I think that the Neocons or that certain elements of the Israeli state (e.g. Likudniks, maybe Mossaad) had no role in 9/11.  They may well have had such a role, along with some American leaders and organizations including, quite possibly, Dick Cheney, certain elements of the US defense/intelligence establishment, and certain US corporations.  So I'm in no way - nor have I ever been - denying that there is no value to any part of Guyenot's thesis.

Nonetheless, it seems fairly clear that both Kevin MacDonald and Lauren Guyenot are both also anti-semitic in the traditional meaning of the word, which means, more or less, hostile or prejudicial towards Jews.  Because of your posts, I have read Understanding Jewish Influence (MacDonald) and JFK-911: 50 Years of the Deep State (Guyenot), and also bothered to learn a little bit about both of these guys.

MacDonald's work is clearly prejudicial - really hateful - towards Jews.  Do you dispute this?  How do you reconcile the fact that you have lifted qualitative judgments from his work - such as the claim that American Jews as a whole attain a level of income and wealth far out of proportion to their percentage of the US population due to, in your words, Jewish "tribal loyalty and cooperation"?  This sort of claim - wholly qualitative and almost impossible to prove one way or the other - has almost nothing to do with the Deep State or 9/11.  It's just a unbacked claim, unsupported in the work of the overtly bigoted MacDonald, and repeated, in a slightly different form, by you.  And, you don't even need to make this sort of claim to pursue Guyenot's 9/11 thesis, yet you choose to do so for some reason.  Why is that?

So Jim, and all, this is what I mean when I say SP has stumbled into a sort of theoretical anti-semitism.  I'm sure you're nice to Jewish friends and neighbors, SP, but you make claims that I see as clearly anti-semitic, without having the intent to do so, I trust. 

I have already posted on MacDonald's position towards Jews and blacks.  Have those of you who find SP's posts compelling forgotten what I posted on MacDonald?  Are you aware, due to your own research of MacDonald's political and racial/ethnic views?  Why is this not relevant?  

SP and others here who agree with his posts on this topic, did you read the part of Guyenot's work that discusses Machiavelli's origins?  If you don't know what I'm talking about, it suggests that you haven't read the work closely and may be doing what I think SP may be doing, which is to swallow a line of thinking whole that actually needs very critical and careful dissection, due to many unsound sections.  PPers are supposed to be critical readers, and not to fall for propaganda or unbacked claims.

What about the fact that Guyenot saw it necessary to publish an essay on the role of Jews in the death Jesus on an anti-semitic French website, led by the openly bigoted Alain Soral?  When you have made many qualitative claims about both Israel and the Jewish people/culture, why is it not legitimate for me to point to the fact that your sources have anti-semitic agendas that make them less reliable, if not totally unreliable?

This has nothing to do with being PC.  These are not knee-jerk reactions on my part.  I read the stuff you've cited, SP, and, at least in the case of Guyenot and MacDonald, we are dealing with people who are bigoted and therefore less reliable.  Yet you have not made any effort to separate their bigotry from any legitimate claims that they may make nor to address my concerns about this.

Making broad, negative claims that cannot be proven and are in many cases simply opinion based about whole groups of people is at the heart of bigotry.  Why is it that these sources are so high on your list?  

I really shouldn't have to do anyone's homework for them.  If you are really only interested in a better understanding of the role of the Deep State in 9/11 - or current political events - why haven't you read these works more critically? Why have you not bothered to differentiate between reliable and unreliable (and slanderous) claims by these authors?

Breaking a few eggs to make an omelet is exactly what Machiavelli justified, and in my view, SP, your discourse to this point has been sufficiently unconcerned with the harm it might cause to qualify as having a somewhat Machiavellian focus on "finding the truth" irrespective of the many falsehoods and harm that it can do by spreading prejudice.  This lack of concern with messy  - arguably unethical - means towards achieving a desired end is another example of how I think the PP community mucks up our local political behavior, making us less qualified to hold forth on national or geopolitics.  And when limits to growth really start to bite, a lot more politics is going to be local, so we ought to be willing to more more nuanced in our discourse and more accountable for our claims.

If there is a diamond of truth among all of the other stuff in the work of MacDonald and Guyenot, then please differentiate for us and focus your research and your claims, as right now the brush you are using is far far too broad.

As far as other reading goes, again, I shouldn't have to do everyone's homework here for them. This is not my burning issue.  I'm all about the three E's and constructive responses and have been since I first got here.  I come from a political background, and I'm pretty tired of all of the emotion-based, unexamined beliefs found in political discussions both in my family, among friends, and here.  But, the nature of some of the statements that you, SP, have made seem both to be untrue and potentially harmful enough to get me to respond, because this is still my chosen community of discourse.

Anyone interested in learning about the nature of the American deep state should be citing other books that don't focus so much on the Jewish role, and should be able to cite other hypotheses.  I have found and read some of these works.  Who else has?  Can you name them?  

Right now the narrow, Israel/Jewish line of research with regards to the Deep State reminds me of a senior essay I read on the extent to which Reagan's arms buildup was responsible for the end of the USSR.  The student cited Rush Limbaugh as if he were a credible source for a history paper and did not mention, much less consider any alternative hypotheses.  It was very obviously narrow, limited, and clearly biased research full of unbacked assertions. There are many other compelling hypotheses for the Soviet Union's collapse, but this students rather uninterested in arriving closer to the truth and allowed in her thoughts to congeal around one belief.

I'd be up for other viewpoints on the deep state, but it seems that there is little or no interest in alternative hypothesis.  Are you guys really intrepidly following Alice deep into the rabbit hole, or did you get stuck in just one just one door in the great hallway, and have neglected to consider the many others?  Does this maybe have to do with the fact that, as Dan Ariely has attested, people like to put a face on their problems, because it's cognitively easier to do so?  So let's hear it.  Who can name - and has read - other deep state books with a different emphasis or focus?  I can and have, but I'd like to see who else has is genuinely curious enough about the nature of this phenomenon to do that.

And, for the record, I'd rather be gardening.  In fact, after spending the first three days of my spring break back in March carefully reading and researching SP's claims, punctuated with that unpleasant interchange with Jim (who I like too!) I threw my hands up, went outside and started a school garden project - the first at my school - and it turned out to be super-successful this spring, at least in terms of student participation and learning.  The slugs have gotten the better of a lot of our produce and I'm most definitely one rank amateur of a gardener.  It doesn't look anything like the magnificent spread that Chris shared with us yesterday, and I'm too ashamed of it so far to show any pictures. But the sweat equity is paying off and the hours I've spent in the garden have been wonderful in terms of being outside and keeping things simple and satisfying.  And, SP, we did a hugel, although it seems that something ate the little lupin starts I planted in it, which we started indoors from seed.  Some peas are coming up, but overall, I still have a LOT to learn. :)

Cheers,

Hugh

Jim H's picture
Jim H
Status: Diamond Member (Offline)
Joined: Jun 8 2009
Posts: 2246
Looks like Bob Moriarty did some research HughK...

http://www.321gold.com/editorials/moriarty/moriarty062416.html

.........We all know intuitively that if you can’t identify the source of a problem, you can’t solve that problem. So we mumble about Nato and Ukraine and Iraq and Syria but never ask just who is behind all the chaos. Who actually initiated the events that led to the greatest number of refugees in world history?

The answer will surprise you but the evidence has been in writing right in front of your eyes. You have to read it and think about it and ask yourself if the events of the past thirty-four years resemble what the writer suggested?

In the Oden Yinon Plan written in 1982 the author quotes,

“Iraq, rich in oil on the one hand and internally torn on the other, is guaranteed as a candidate for Israel's targets. Its dissolution is even more important for us than that of Syria. Iraq is stronger than Syria. In the short run it is Iraqi power which constitutes the greatest threat to Israel. An Iraqi-Iranian war will tear Iraq apart and cause its downfall at home even before it is able to organize a struggle on a wide front against us. Every kind of inter-Arab confrontation will assist us in the short run and will shorten the way to the more important aim of breaking up Iraq into denominations as in Syria and in Lebanon. In Iraq, a division into provinces along ethnic/religious lines as in Syria during Ottoman times is possible. So, three (or more) states will exist around the three major cities: Basra, Baghdad and Mosul, and Shi'ite areas in the south will separate from the Sunni and Kurdish north. It is possible that the present Iranian-Iraqi confrontation will deepen this polarization.

The entire Arabian Peninsula is a natural candidate for dissolution due to internal and external pressures, and the matter is inevitable especially in Saudi Arabia. Regardless of whether its economic might based on oil remains intact or whether it is diminished in the long run, the internal rifts and breakdowns are a clear and natural development in light of the present political structure.”

This was followed up with a derivative of the Yinon Plan written for Benjamin Netanyahu in 1996 called, "A Clean Break..." In this paper written by a number of Jewish citizens, they clearly made their allegiance to Israel known. The writers included Richard Perle, David Wurmser, Meyrav Wurmser and Douglas Feith.

Two of the three new policies outlined in the position paper suggested,

1. Rather than pursuing a "comprehensive peace" with the entire Arab world, Israel should work jointly with Jordan and Turkey to "contain, destabilize, and roll-back" those entities that are threats to all three.

2. Changing the nature of relations with the Palestinians, specifically reserving the right of "hot pursuit" anywhere within Palestinian territory as well as attempting to promote alternatives to Arafat's leadership.

In an interesting aside, Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu rejected the position paper as being too extreme. If what the writers suggested sounds familiar, it may be because it is a carbon copy of the events of the last thirteen years. The idea that somehow a civil war began in 2011 in Syria is utter rubbish and everyone claiming it knows that it is rubbish. Those same Jewish citizens also hold US passports and would later lie the Bush administration into war in Iraq that continues today.........

Mark_BC's picture
Mark_BC
Status: Gold Member (Offline)
Joined: Apr 30 2010
Posts: 387
I posted a similar question

I posted a similar question in the Brexit thread but what is everyone's opinion of the very unlikely occurrences of 7 and other references in recent events? Over the last several decades, market crashes have occurred every 7 years. The last one was Sept. 28, 2008. Many people were predicting the next crash 7 years later in Sept 2015. It didn't happen, but then 7 years, 7 months, 7 weeks and 7 days later, on June 23, 2016, it did happen. Cameron inexplicably bumped up the date of the Brexit referendum to coincide with this.

Why, in the movie The Matrix, was there a reference to Thomas Anderson's passport expiring on Sept. 11, 2001? That was revealed in the interview scene in which Thomas naively points out his right to see his lawyer. The agents laugh and glue his mouth shut. On that date everyone's civil rights ended. After taking the red pill, Anderson became Neo and was relentlessly persecuted. Is "NEO" a metaphor for "NWO"?

Why is the "rebel humans' last refuge in the real world" called Zion?

One could write all these off as coincidence but any statistical analysis would prove otherwise. These things would seem to go very "Deep State". These people are secretive and devious, so how do we find reliable information?

sand_puppy's picture
sand_puppy
Status: Diamond Member (Offline)
Joined: Apr 13 2011
Posts: 1326
Lets look at the content of the position.

Simply declaring that a certain writer is bigoted so they should be dismissed in toto, is not the same as addressing the content of their discussion.  I found Guyenot and MacDonald to make reasoned arguments that seemed to me to be well researched (bibliographies in the hundreds).  Same with The Saker and several others listed.  The Zionism-critical body of literature is real.

I believe that GREEN Meme and higher who examine the practices of Zionism are outraged and incensed by their inhumanity.  This includes Jewish GREEN and YELLOW writers.  Therefore it is NOT anti-Semitism.

Please watch the youtube talk by Anna Baltzar on her experiences in Palestine and ask, what is the mindset of the people running this system?

AKGrannyWGrit's picture
AKGrannyWGrit
Status: Gold Member (Offline)
Joined: Feb 6 2011
Posts: 326
Critical Research?

PPers are supposed to be critical readers, and not to fall for propaganda or unbacked claims.

I must have missed the section that provides what PPers are "supposed" to be.  Please advise as I am positive that I and thousands of others like me wouldn't qualify for membership.  From years of being a member though I can attest that there is a group think on this site and those people who dare think differently or have opinions that are not mainstream are often targeted and attacked.  Opposing and diverse opinions can prompt people to become critical readers and researchers so why not let people have diverse opinions, respectfully, of course.  Not sure why there is an absolute obsession to prove people wrong.  Rather I like to discover how different people see the world from their frame of reference such as the woman in the video above. 

Perhaps there isn't a "right" way to view the Jewish/Palestinian predicament but rather from diverse frames of reference. 

AK GrannyWGrit

Time2help's picture
Time2help
Status: Diamond Member (Offline)
Joined: Jun 9 2011
Posts: 2400
From two different perspectives

davefairtex's picture
davefairtex
Status: Diamond Member (Offline)
Joined: Sep 3 2008
Posts: 3945
one world government - from Jerusalem

So the only link you provided (I'm not in a position to read a number of books just to discover the alleged basis for the "one world ruled from Jerusalem" theory) had a single quote that I found edifying:

Haim Saban discussed his views on the Middle East and Persian Gulf region in great detail in a 2006 interview with Haaretz. Particularly notable were his comments regarding Iran: “When I see Ahmadinejad, I see Hitler. They speak the same language. His motivation is also clear: the return of the Mahdi is a supreme goal. And for a religious person of deep self-persuasion, that supreme goal is worth the liquidation of five and a half million Jews. We cannot allow ourselves that. Nuclear weapons in the hands of a religious leadership that is convinced that the annihilation of Israel will bring about the emergence of a new Muslim caliphate? Israel cannot allow that. This is no game. It’s truly an existential danger.”

So to this guy, existential threats to Israel are bad.  He wasn't talking about the desire for a one world government ruling from Jerusalem, it was all about "bad guys threatening Israel."  This perfectly fits my model of what motivates these people.

SP, many of your arguments make a great deal of sense.  I'd be happy to talk with you about them.  But one world government as a central motivator - I just don't buy it.  And to date, you've provided not one shred of evidence on this matter.  In fact, all the evidence points in another direction entirely.

I cannot have an evidence-based discussion with you if, under the covers, you are actually driven by superstition, myth, and unsupported opinion from people who clearly don't like the neocons.  If you find the myths written by these people compelling, I know going in there's no point in discussing things since you cannot be convinced by evidence - that you will find your own myths more attractive, and so there is no point in me spending my time and energy.

To me, that "Clinton Email" was the gold standard of evidence - it painted a very clear picture about the extent of neocon influence from Sec State herself.  That email could have been written by an Israeli.

Go find me something similar - preferably a whole collection of examples - written by a neocon, that supports this claim of yours that their central motivating myth is a one-world government ruling the world from Jerusalem.

If you can't find examples of this, I suggest you might consider revisiting your enthusiasm for this claim.

Again, if this their central motivating myth, there should be a metric shitload of examples.  In the real world, people do not hide their central motivating myths!  They must be shared in order to be central and motivating!  As a result, they must be out there for everyone to see.

My goal is to separate fact from fiction.  To do this, I rely on evidence.  its a process that works for me.  What does the evidence tell me about what motivates the neocons?  "Israel must survive at all costs."  That is their central motivating myth.

pinecarr's picture
pinecarr
Status: Diamond Member (Offline)
Joined: Apr 13 2008
Posts: 2157
Here's another perspective

...on the motivation for BREXIT, from  King World News reader:

"Please, please, please, do not listen to the distorted views of the mainstream media. Yes, immigration is a major problem. But not THE REASON why the we voted to leave the EU. We as a people have demanded our country back from the unelected elites which have become our masters. An unelected EU government with no opposition, with the power to make our laws and determine how we live our lives. Immigration is a secondary topic, the economy is secondary, if we are worse off we will live with our decision. If we suffer, so be it. Our freedom and the freedom of our children is much more important. People have died in the millions to fight for this basic right. We have given a shining example of democracy to the world. We have put our country and our future above our individual interests. The British lion has awakened from a long sleep. Today I have never been more proud of the silent, decent Briton who stood up to be counted.

— From a King World News reader in Yorkshire

http://kingworldnews.com/a-stunning-email-about-brexit-vote-as-elites-panic-and-global-collapse-edges-closer/

Time2help's picture
Time2help
Status: Diamond Member (Offline)
Joined: Jun 9 2011
Posts: 2400
Follow the "money"

Some questions to ponder:

  • Whom has really owned/operated the Federal Reserve System since it's inception in 1913?
  • Where do their allegiances reside?
  • If some were so inclined to run a "global conquest project" (probably not cheap), how might they fund it?
davefairtex's picture
davefairtex
Status: Diamond Member (Offline)
Joined: Sep 3 2008
Posts: 3945
no evidence yet

TTH-

Your post did not address supplying evidence supporting the claim that the neocons are primarily driven by forming "a one world government ruled from Jerusalem."  I can only assume that's because you don't have any such evidence.

All you supply is a constant stream of innuendo, and I just don't find that stuff to be compelling.  It reminds me of Nixon's 11th hour campaign phone calls when he was running for Congress: "Did you know that Helen Gahagan Douglas is a Communist?" <click>

HughK's picture
HughK
Status: Platinum Member (Offline)
Joined: Mar 6 2012
Posts: 759
You have repeated some of MacDonald's bigoted statements

Hi SP,

You have repeated some of MacDonald's bigoted statements, including the wealth distribution example I gave above.  You have also suggested that, in effect, Jews control the media.  You didn't say red meme Jews, you just said Jews.  I am trying to keep my time on this short, so I'm not going back to check.  If this is not an accurate depiction of your view on that, please let me know.

This is in spite of the fact that you do not need these types of positions to forward your thesis that the Neocons and some elements of the Israeli gov't had a role in in 9/11.  Now, if your new thesis is one world government from Jerusalem, I don't know what to say.

Here is the paraphrased core of from MacDonald's Understanding Jewish Influence. Note that he did not say Zionist influence, but rather Jewish influence.  MacDonald is most definitely treating Jews as a group.

Jews are ethnocentric

Jews have an above average intelligence

Jews are psychologically intense

Jews are aggressive

You could easily say that the American white majority or the Han Chinese or Russians are also ethnocentric and aggressive as well.  These are qualitative statements that are almost impossible to prove one way or the other.  Yes, MacDonald cites a lot of sources to support his view.  But I could cite a whole bunch of sources that made blanket statements about the Chinese, the Russians, the Arabs, or the Americans.  Doesn't make them true, and even if some elements of these blanket statements are true, they don't mean that the Chinese, the Americans, or the Jews perpetrated this or that historical crime.

And just to be clear that MacDonald is acting in bad faith, he helped to found and continuous the American Freedom Party, which is a clearly white supremacist party.  He seems to be a guy who sits somewhere between the red and blue meme.

I have already asked you to differentiate the parts of MacDonald upon which you are drawing and  which you are rejecting.  In light of the statements that MacDonald has made above this seems like a reasonable request.  Which parts of Understanding Jewish Influence did you need in order to develop your current viewpoint?  Why do you trust someone who sees white people in the same way that you claim that Jews see themselves?

HughK's picture
HughK
Status: Platinum Member (Offline)
Joined: Mar 6 2012
Posts: 759
Israel & Palestine v. Russia and Chechnya

Hi T2H,

I have agreed for many years that Israel's treatment of the Palestinians is a bloody violation of human rights.

But why the focus on Israel & the Jews?  How many Chechen civilians were killed by Putin in the 2nd Chechen War and how many Palestinians have been killed by Israelis since the time of the Chechen war, which was around 1998?  

The same crowd here at PP who has spent a lot of time decrying Israel & the Jews has shown a remarkable tolerance, sometimes even affinity, for Putin.  Why do you think that is?  

Is Putin not a bloody Machiavellian?  The fact that many here let him off the hook so easily suggest that the focus on Israel is becoming singular obsession, whereas other oppressive regimes, including Russia's, have been given a free pass or in many cases praised.

Jim H's picture
Jim H
Status: Diamond Member (Offline)
Joined: Jun 8 2009
Posts: 2246
Hughk

You said,

The same crowd here at PP who has spent a lot of time decrying Israel & the Jews has shown a remarkable tolerance, sometimes even affinity, for Putin.  Why do you think that is?

Ummm.. because Putin has not captured the machinery of my government and Corp. mass media, and the Zionist/Neocon arm of Israel has?  Could it be that?  Possibly?    

And, BTW.. I don't, "decry" Israel or Jews in general.. and I don't think anyone else from the, "crowd" here at PP.com does either.  Those are your words, meant to create the impression of something that isn't.   

Mark_BC's picture
Mark_BC
Status: Gold Member (Offline)
Joined: Apr 30 2010
Posts: 387
HughK wrote: Hi T2H, I have

HughK wrote:

Hi T2H,

I have agreed for many years that Israel's treatment of the Palestinians is a bloody violation of human rights.

But why the focus on Israel & the Jews?  How many Chechen civilians were killed by Putin in the 2nd Chechen War and how many Palestinians have been killed by Israelis since the time of the Chechen war, which was around 1998?  

The same crowd here at PP who has spent a lot of time decrying Israel & the Jews has shown a remarkable tolerance, sometimes even affinity, for Putin.  Why do you think that is?  

Is Putin not a bloody Machiavellian?  The fact that many here let him off the hook so easily suggest that the focus on Israel is becoming singular obsession, whereas other oppressive regimes, including Russia's, have been given a free pass or in many cases praised.

as far as I am aware there is no evidence that Putin was involved in the take down of the twin towers. Putin or Russians do not own the vast majority of the us media. I think the fact that Israel has footprints all over this justifies Americans' inquiring minds. It took me a long time to be able to begin looking at the Israeli connections without the anti-Semitic stigma.

sand_puppy's picture
sand_puppy
Status: Diamond Member (Offline)
Joined: Apr 13 2011
Posts: 1326
Evaluating MacDonald's Writings

For $2.99, anyone can download the Kindle version of "Understanding Jewish Influence" and spend a few hours perusing the small book.  (Down load the free Kindle reader for you computer if you don't have one.)

Only 0.5% of the world population is Jewish and only 3% of the US.  Yet this group holds 40% of the Forbes Fortune 400 list and is far disproportionately represented in banking, science, politics, university affiliation and media.

The explanation that this is coincidental (they "just happen to be Jewish") seems far fetched to me.

It is OK to want to understand the dynamics of this remarkable group.

Rector's picture
Rector
Status: Gold Member (Offline)
Joined: Feb 7 2010
Posts: 446
I Know You Won't Believe This But. . .

God (He exists) through His sovereign will and plan has chosen this group of people.  They have been blessed more than any other people and in response they have rebelled against Him.  He describes the situation in Deuteronomy.

“For you are a holy people to the Lord your God; the Lord your God has chosen you to be a people for Himself, a special treasure above all the peoples on the face of the earth. The Lord did not set His love on you nor choose you because you were more in number than any other people, for you were the least of all peoples; but because the Lord loves you, and because He would keep the oath which He swore to your fathers, the Lord has brought you out with a mighty hand, and redeemed you from the house of bondage, from the hand of Pharaoh king of Egypt.

“Therefore know that the Lord your God, He is God, the faithful God who keeps covenant and mercy for a thousand generations with those who love Him and keep His commandments; 10 and He repays those who hate Him to their face, to destroy them. He will not be slack with him who hates Him; He will repay him to his face. 11 Therefore you shall keep the commandment, the statutes, and the judgments which I command you today, to observe them.

Michael_Rudmin's picture
Michael_Rudmin
Status: Platinum Member (Offline)
Joined: Jun 25 2014
Posts: 688
Rector, I do believe it,but that's not all.

I've been talking with some about a superstitious factoring of sevens into the reporting of events.

But there's an even wilder coincidence, if you will, relating to Leviticus 26.

http://www.waitingforjesus.com/1948prophecyfulfilled.html

Basically, from the time of the fall of Jerusalem to the reestablishment of Israel as a kingdom by international acclaim in May 1948, is the length of time proclaimed in Leviticus 26.

It took a heretic Jehovah's Witness to notice this, and you may think what you will about it. But if this IS true, then ... messing with Israel, you mess with their Dad.

HughK's picture
HughK
Status: Platinum Member (Offline)
Joined: Mar 6 2012
Posts: 759
So you are making generalizations about Jews

sand_puppy wrote:

For $2.99, anyone can download the Kindle version of "Understanding Jewish Influence" and spend a few hours perusing the small book.  (Down load the free Kindle reader for you computer if you don't have one.)

Only 0.5% of the world population is Jewish and only 3% of the US.  Yet this group holds 40% of the Forbes Fortune 400 list and is far disproportionately represented in banking, science, politics, university affiliation and media.

The explanation that this is coincidental (they "just happen to be Jewish") seems far fetched to me.

It is OK to want to understand the dynamics of this remarkable group.

Hi SP,

OK, so, first, you admit that you are making generalizations about Jews as a whole, not just red and blue meme Jews. 

Second, you haven't explained why you trust MacDonald to make the qualitative judgment calls that he makes in Understanding Jewish Influence, when he is has openly advocated for white supremacy in a number of ways.

And I read the book, just as I read Guyenot's book that you cited.

HughK's picture
HughK
Status: Platinum Member (Offline)
Joined: Mar 6 2012
Posts: 759
Israel vs. all Jews

Mark_BC wrote:

HughK wrote:

Hi T2H,

I have agreed for many years that Israel's treatment of the Palestinians is a bloody violation of human rights.

But why the focus on Israel & the Jews?  How many Chechen civilians were killed by Putin in the 2nd Chechen War and how many Palestinians have been killed by Israelis since the time of the Chechen war, which was around 1998?  

The same crowd here at PP who has spent a lot of time decrying Israel & the Jews has shown a remarkable tolerance, sometimes even affinity, for Putin.  Why do you think that is?  

Is Putin not a bloody Machiavellian?  The fact that many here let him off the hook so easily suggest that the focus on Israel is becoming singular obsession, whereas other oppressive regimes, including Russia's, have been given a free pass or in many cases praised.

as far as I am aware there is no evidence that Putin was involved in the take down of the twin towers. Putin or Russians do not own the vast majority of the us media. I think the fact that Israel has footprints all over this justifies Americans' inquiring minds. It took me a long time to be able to begin looking at the Israeli connections without the anti-Semitic stigma.

Hi Mark,

Yes, I agree that it's totally legit. to look at the trail of evidence of 9/11.  My point there was that Israel is not the only country that violates human rights in a big way and was in specific response to the videos about Israel's treatment of the Palestinians.  China, Russia, and the US all do so as well, in different ways.  It also seems fair to ask why the focus here on the Deep State 9/11 for the last six months or so trail has been almost solely on Israel and the Jewish people, and not on other aspects of the American Deep State.  

Also, while it it true that 9/11 was a harm against American, and Chechnya was not, if we at PP care about human rights in general, then it's pretty surprising that many of the same people who are currently focused on the Jews and/or Israel have been so quick to overlook Putin's war crimes and be supportive of the Russian state's position.

My view is that any government, once it becomes big enough, abuses its power and that currently we have a lot of governments that are bad actors in the world.  The best response to this, in my view, is to focus on the three E's and resilient responses, because if you try to identify which government is causing the worst problem here or there, you're going to be very very busy and distracted from what matters.

I have yet to hear anyone name a work on the Deep State that doesn't blame Israel and the Jews, yet they are out there.  I am not sure of the reason why no one is interested in looking at these other theories, readily available.  Like I said earlier, it seems to me that a group of people decided to go down the Rabbit Hole, but then fixated at only one door in the Hall of Doors, when there are many others.  It is worth contemplating why this is.

Finally, Israel does not control the US media.  There are certainly a disproportionate number of Jews in the American news media, but when you say "vast majority" what do you mean? 55%?  80%  95%  I have yet to see data on this.  

Assuming that they all work together to forward the same agenda, or that Israel controls the US media because there are a lot of American Jews there, seems to me to be an example of assuming that almost Jews do the same thing and that they are all working for the Israelis government.  If you're going to make that claim, then it would be good to supply some evidence, as assuming that a certain group of people almost all act the same way seems to me to be bigotry.

The current conception here of the 9/11 attacks and the Deep State has become very narrowly focused.  It would be great to see the crowd that casts blame for this on the Jews, the Zionists, Israel, or the Neocons - and all of these groups have been blamed in different ways in different posts - to at least acknowledge that there are other aspects to the Deep State, and maybe even to contemplate their role.  Again, it would be instructional to understand why this hasn't happened yet.

Cheers,

Hugh

Michael_Rudmin's picture
Michael_Rudmin
Status: Platinum Member (Offline)
Joined: Jun 25 2014
Posts: 688
duplicate

duplicate post

davefairtex's picture
davefairtex
Status: Diamond Member (Offline)
Joined: Sep 3 2008
Posts: 3945
I'm a little slow

SP-

I'm a little slow, but I finally figured it out.

The neocons don't have a central motivating myth about the one-world rule from Jerusalem.

Instead, it is YOU that have this myth.  This is YOUR central motivating myth, your lens through which you view the world, and this myth of yours is shared by others here, as well as (now I'm guessing) the writers that you rely upon for your information.  You project this myth of yours onto your target group, and all facts and events in the world are filtered through the myth of yours.

I'm happy to discuss the outsized influence of the neocons on US foreign policy and whether or not this is something we would like to continue.  There is good solid evidence for the strength of this influence (they clearly write policy docs for Sec State!), and the path they seem to be taking us down does not appear to be one with a happy ending - not for us, and not for Israel too.  It appears to be a stupid, short-sighted policy with no winners, and a lot of losers.

As for your your larger conspiracy ("they" want to rule us all from Jerusalem), I find this to be an evidence-free claim - it is just your own myth, no more and no less.

Saying "some Jews have a lot of money" is not evidence that "Jews want to rule us all from Jerusalem."  It does prove that some Jews are rich, and if you link donations they make to particular politicians, then that makes a good case that these rich people have influence over policy - and likely that's the source of neocon influence.

That still doesn't prove that "they" want to rule us all from Jerusalem.

Are there more rich Jews than rich other-people?  I don't know, I haven't looked into it.  Let's assume it is true - it STILL doesn't prove that "they" want to rule us all from Jerusalem.

In short, if we stick to the subject of neocons and their effect on US policy, you'll have my attention.  If you wander off into the various myths you have about one-world governments, Jews, and Jerusalem, you'll lose me.

blackeagle's picture
blackeagle
Status: Silver Member (Offline)
Joined: May 16 2013
Posts: 167
my 2 cents...

Why if what is happening is much simpler than the idea that Jews wants a world government from Jerusalem? if that was the case, I agree with Dave that this goal would be written on every wall AND at the same time the Jews would be the target of every non-jew on this planet. Given their very little number, I won't bet a penny on their success... whatever armed they are. People die for their religion or against the other.

What makes sense to me is the combination of several things that combines to give the situation where we are. 

1) The pie is shrinking. So, the different groups that used to take their part, are now not only fighting to keep it, but also doing all what they could to kick-out their opponents. By groups i mean the usual powers behind curtains that vacuum financial wealth.

2) These same financial powers, wants control of the entire planet (if fact, the resources, and the money), but they want to stay in their secretive shadow. They will continue to use governments as proxies. When things get sour then the "guilty" government is wiped out and replaced by a fresh scapegoat and the cycle repeats.

3) WW2 was a real trauma for the Jews. They decided that they won't be caught a second time at any cost. The Rothschild family helped a lot in the creation of Israel by taking advantage of the sentiment of guilt that was prevalent after WW2. The issue with Israel is that this is a war government. For half the world this is Israel's fault, and for the other half this is arab's fault. And because religions are implicated, the fighting sides won't back-up. Things will stop once one of the sides is annihilated.

4)-a) The church did not promote the idea to be rich. People were in general kept poor and the wealth was reserved for a very tiny elite (kings, church, mainly).

4)-b) The Islam religion do not promote interests (lending).

4)-a) and 4)-b) excluded for a very long time Christians and Muslims from the finance world. We know that Jews were the bankers of Christians and Muslims since the middle age. If we see that Jews are disproportionately represented in the financial world today, this could be because they were given this niche market for a very long time. Can we blame them for that?

5) If some neocons names sound jewish, not all of them are. May be their raison d'etre is to control world resources and as a consequence the money and have power. 

6) Putin is a serious roadblock straight in the path of the ones that wants the resources for them. He is then a target.

I am sure I am missing a bunch of dots, but these few points tells me that we are in the middle of a multiplayer game for money. I think Jerusalem is not important to them (or not as much as we want to think). May be nothing more than a distraction to help miss the real issues?  Who knows?

Rector's picture
Rector
Status: Gold Member (Offline)
Joined: Feb 7 2010
Posts: 446
Interesting

I haven't run the numbers on the dates to confirm, so I don't know if what's claimed here is true.  I can (with confidence) say that I wouldn't be surprised.  Truth has a way of self-validating.  One day everyone will be in full agreement as to the facts.  Just wait.

Rector

LogansRun's picture
LogansRun
Status: Diamond Member (Offline)
Joined: Mar 18 2009
Posts: 1428
Wow

The outright willful blindness of a few here at PP (always the same people), replicates what the masses of western citizens are thinking/doing on a daily basis.  Because of this "Willful Blindness", the Zionists control/grip tightens by the day.  Wake up.

On another note, for anyone that's ever traveled to Russia, or other former communist states, and had discussions with the citizens of them...the idea that the Zionist Israeli Faction is in control of the Western Governments, Media, Financial sector, etc...is not just an "Idea", but the TRUTH to them.  Why is it so easy for them to understand reality, but for 99% of the Western Citizens to not?.....

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.
Login or Register to post comments