The War Party is beating the drums again, and much of the media is obediently falling into line. Jeffrey Goldberg, whose article for the New Yorkerwas an important part of the disinformation campaign that was so central to the successful neocon push for the Iraq war, is leading the charge once again. His recent Atlantic article, “The Point of No Return,” is a brief for another war, this time with Iran. Rather than present his own doubtless warmongering views, he slants his article as objective reportage on the mindset of Israel’s leaders, particularly Benjamin Netanayahu’s “belief … that Iran is not Israel’s problem alone; it is the world’s problem, and the world, led by the United States, is duty-bound to grapple with it.
“Duty-bound”? That’s quite a sense of duty. The world has a duty to deal with a regime whose overt animus is directed at Israel, and if it doesn’t, Israel will do it itself. Goldberg claims that a military strike is also favored by Arab states, a point cogently disputed by Marc Lynch writing in Atlantic. In any case it’s a bit difficult to believe that “Several Arab leaders have suggested that America’s standing in the Middle East depends on its willingness to confront Iran.” How about America’s standing in the region depending on its ability to pressure Israel from its expansionist aims and end Israeli oppression of the Palestinians?Nah, the Arabs could care less about that.
In any case, one still wonders how attacking Iran is in the interests of the US or the rest of the world. But of course, interest is irrelevant. That’s the thing about duties. When one has a duty, self-interest and personal desire are irrelevant. You have a duty. Be a good soldier. Do it and don’t ask questions. End of story.
Goldberg never tells us why the US has a duty to initiate a military strike against Iran (although one can infer it has something to do with the Holocaust). So his main thrust is to show that Netanyahu would do it unilaterally if the US won’t. And why is Netanyahu so gung-ho on war? It’s because of the influence of his father, Ben-Zion Netanyahu: “To understand why Netanyahu possesses this deep sense—and why his understanding of Jewish history might lead him to attack Iran, even over Obama’s objections—it is necessary to understand Ben-Zion Netanyahu, his 100-year-old father.”
The senior Netanyahu is a premier example of a Jewish academic ethnic activist. Goldberg informs us that he was Vladimir Jabotinsky’s secretary. Jabotinsky was the father of racial Zionism and the inspiration of the terrorist wing of Zionism prior to 1948. Since that time, Jabotinsky has been the inspiration for the pro-expansion, pro-settler Likud Party—racial Zionism in all but name. As Geoffrey Wheatcroft recently pointed out, at the present time Israel “is governed by [Jabotinsky’s] conscious heirs.”
Goldberg describes Ben-Zion Netanyahu’s most important work, The Origins of the Inquisition in 15th-Century Spain (1995), as follows: “He argued that Spanish hatred of Jews was spurred by the principle of limpieza de sangre, or the purity of blood; it was proto-Nazi thought, in other words, not mere theology, that motivated the Inquisition. Ben-Zion also argued that the Inquisition corresponds to the axiom that anti-Semitic persecution is preceded, in all cases, by carefully scripted and lengthy dehumanization campaigns meant to ensure the efficient eventual elimination of Jews. To him, the lessons of Jewish history are plain and insistent.”
Netanyahu’s apologetic account of the Spanish Inquisition is a major topic of Chapter 7 of Separation and Its Discontents (“Rationalization and Apologia: The Intellectual Construction of Judaism”), including especially a long appendix.I remember when I first read his work that I was struck at how baldly apologetic it was—up front and in your face. One reviewer referred to his “almost mystical jeremiads against the Inquisitors” — not exactly the mark of an objective historian.
Basically, it’s the same old story: the behavior of Jews is irrelevant to the hostility people have against them. In this case, he tried to show that the Jews who converted to Christianity were sincere in their beliefs so that the Inquisition was at bottom racialist. I accept that some of the New Christians may have been sincere (and even Netanyahu admits that some were not). But I point out that, whatever their beliefs, there is a lot of evidence that the New Christians continued to intermarry and retain all the other ingroup connections that have always characterized Jews. The result was that an ethnically alien group came to dominate Spanish society even though it had adopted a surface of Christianity. In other words, Jewish racialism came first, followed by the Inquisition as a reaction. In the absence of surface religious differences, the only clue the Inquisition had was suspicion based on their ethnic ties—limpieze de sangre. Ethnicity matters as a point of conflict, even when people have the same surface beliefs.
One of Netanyahu’s comments made an indelible impression because it depicted Jews as willing and self-conscious agents of princely “massive exploitation”—a major theme of anti-Jewish attitudes in traditional societies.
It was primarily because of the functions of the Jews as the king’s revenue gatherers in the urban areas that the cities saw the Jews as the monarch’s agents, who treated them as objects of massive exploitation. By serving as they did the interests of the kings, the Jews seemed to be working against the interests of the cities; and thus we touch again on the phenomenon we have referred to: the fundamental conflict between the kings and their people—a conflict not limited to financial matters, but one that embraced all spheres of government that had a bearing on the people’s life. It was in part thanks to this conflict of interests that the Jews could survive the harsh climate of the Middle Ages, and it is hard to believe that they did not discern it when they came to resettle in Christian Europe. Indeed, their requests, since the days of the Carolingians, for assurances of protection before they settled in a place show (a) that they realized that the kings’ positions on many issues differed from those of the common people and (b) that the kings were prepared, for the sake of their interests, to make common cause with the “alien” Jews against the clear wishes of their Christian subjects. In a sense, therefore, the Jews’ agreements with the kings in the Middle Ages resembled the understandings they had reached with foreign conquerors in the ancient world. (Netanyahu 1995, 71–72)
One would think on the basis of his portrayal of Jews as willing and self-conscious agents of massive exploitation in alliance with corrupt elites that Netanyahu would realize the rationality of traditional anti-Jewish attitudes. However, there is little evidence of that, and certainly his treatment of the motives behind the Inquisition strongly suggest that he thinks Jews are blameless. (I can’t resist pointing out the parallel to our current situation—that our new American elite is substantially composed of ethnically conscious Jews with a heavy sprinkling of corrupt White people with no allegiance or loyalty to their own people—exactly the Jewish formula for success in traditional societies.)
Indeed, the above passage can be read as saying that the Jews had to be exploiters in order to survive the Middle Ages. Survival comes first before any compunction about exploiting non-Jews.(Jewish exploitation of non-Jews was greatly facilitated by Jewish religious attitudes that non-Jews are exploitable outgroups—an ideology that is enshrined in all the founding Jewish religious documents, from the Old Testament to the Talmud.) It’s an argument that can easily be applied to issues like West Bank settlements — needed to make Israel into a viable entity. George Will’s recent column pointed once again to the pre-1967 borders of Israel as dangerously indefensible.
It’s interesting that this survival-first argument is the key to the current attitudes emanating from the Netanyahu camp. Goldberg never once mentions the reality that Jewish behavior has poisoned the atmosphere in the Middle East. It’s simply about survival. As Netanyahu the elder stated: “The Jewish people are making their position clear and putting faith in their military power. The nation of Israel is showing the world today how a state should behave when it stands before an existential threat: by looking danger in the eye and calmly considering what should be done and what can be done. And to be ready to enter the fray at the moment there is a reasonable chance of success.”
This view that the behavior of Jews is irrelevant to hatred directed against them is an incredibly important part of the Jewish self-concept. A recent review of a book on the history of British attitudes on Jews begins, “What is important about anti-Semitism—a fairly modern term for an ancient clutch of ideas—is that it has less to tell us about the Jews themselves than about their enemies” (“Inverted targets,” David Vital’s review of Anthony Julius’s Trials of the Diaspora, TLS, July 23, 2010).
One can always understand the appeal of an existential argument, but it would be much more compelling for non-Jews if Israel’s behavior since 1967 had not appalled pretty much everyone who is paying attention. The problem is that Jews have a long history of not acknowledging the role of their own behavior in fomenting anti-Jewish attitudes. Then, when it blows up, it’s all about survival. Survival trumps everything else, certainly including any need to alter their behavior. As Tallyrand saidof the Bourbon kings, “They learned nothing, they forgot nothing.”
Facing the Future as a Minority
The simple fact is that if Israel were capable of successfully attacking and destroying Iran’s nuclear infrastructure without incurring a fatal counter-attack and without having to use nuclear weapons, it would have already done so. Anthony Cordesman has produced a detailed analysis of the situation and it makes for sober reading.
Only the good ole’ USA has the wherewithal to successfully attack and destroy the Iranian nuclear facilities, but the consequences would be horrific. That’s why even George W. Bush displaying his warmongeringest personna knew better than to kowtow to the zionist pressure to attack Iran.
But the relentless pressure and propaganda continue. The article by the fat-jowled Jeffrey Goldberg is part of the push. Will Obama resist? Only time will tell.
Fantastic article.
Scary, scary times we live in.
It’s a bit of conundrum for Jewry. To “survive” through the centuries, it’s had to make itself impervious to criticism by adopting a group sociopathic narcissism. But it’s that same narcissism that is today turning it into an international pariah.
But “survival” for Jewry seems to be something very different than how others define the word. For Jewry, survival seems to correlate with lording over non-Jews in some way, and finding ways to manipulate, exploit, plunder and even murder them in a way so that everybody knows what they are doing, but isn’t in a position to do anything about.
For example, many knew Jewry was behind the Iraq war scam, but no one could do anything about it because it has the Political Class triangulated; same goes for the various epic financial swindles. And as KM noted, often this means forming a useful alliance with a corrupt elite looking to plunder its own people; Jews make the perfect partners, because they have mastered all the sleight of hand tricks, and won’t show any pity for the Goyim, whom they hate anyway.
The other point about Jewish “survival” is that Jewry has always polarized itself from non-Jews deliberately. It’s polarizing attitude is written into and inherent in its Talmudic religion. This is how it maintains its hard core. The Jews that get disgusted by this, throw up their hands and walk away are merely viewed as a cost of doing business, and unworthy of being Jews anyway.
There is now a growing army of these, and many of them are out for blood — yet another example in a long litany of how Jewry goes through a constant cycle of digging its own grave. On some level, I think it resents its burden and wants an end.
@ TGD
Thanks, this is really interesting information:
http://csis.org/files/media/csis/pubs/090316_israelistrikeiran.pdf
Once again, the Jews have much to blame on themselves because of our lax immigration/education situation which they created in 1965. Heck, 30 years ago, before the Iranian revolution against the Shah, there were thousands of Iranian engineers in our best American engineering schools soaking up all of the American technology they could absorb.
What the Iranians learned in America may well come back to bite the Jews in the ass. Poetic justice.
Iran is not a military threat to Israel, Goldberg’s piece is quite revealing about what the Israelis’ real worry is :-
That’s almost honest, the actual – unspoken – consideration is that if Iran is crushed the Palestinians will become much easier to handle in the long term. While an nuclear armed Iran would make the problems of the Palestinians in the West Bank and Israel proper unmanageable and inexorably turn Israel into the kind of country that ambitious young secular Jews will not want to live in. Why is Israel So Poor?
I expect if the US proves stubborn Israel will start hinting about using their own nuclear weapons.
Ripley: How do we kill it Ash? There’s gotta be a way of killing it, how, *how* do we do it?
Ash: You can’t.
Parker: That’s bullshit.
Ash: You still don’t understand what you’re dealing with, do you? Perfect organism. Its structural perfection is matched only by its hostility.
Lambert: You admire it.
Ash: I admire its purity. A survivor… unclouded by conscience, remorse, or delusions of morality.
You should remember that Jews like Norman Finkelstein and Uri Avnery are some of Israel’s harshest critics. Just sayin’.
Thinking jews can help solve the jew problem the USA faces is foolish.
Our problem is not Israel. Israel is a sympton of jew control of or banks, media, and politicians. The only jew I have ever heard of who speaks out against the jew banker/media syndicate is Gilad Atzmon and we don’t need his help either.
“Ben-Zion Netanyahu, his 100-year-old father.”
Does anyone know his diet ?
Der weiße Engel
“I say we take off, nuke the site from orbit… it’s the only way to be sure.”
”You should remember that Jews like Norman Finkelstein and Uri Avnery are some of Israel’s harshest critics. Just sayin’.”
For all we now, people like them are on the Mossad’s payroll.
On all the occasions I’ve seen Finkelstein talk he’s never missed the opportunity to bring up the fact that his parents died in the Holocaust (of disease, of course).
There’s little doubt in my mind that most critics of Israel today are actually on their payroll. They’re given a 5-10 minutes slot every now and then to give the impression that someone’s investigating the investigators, but they never actually give out any valuable info. Just sayin’.
George Will’s column is a hoax. If nuclear-armed Israel’s concern was the “security” of its citizens rather than the stealing of land and water, the country would not be settling Zionists amongst the Palestinian population in the occupied territories. As for the 1967 war, he lied about who started that. Israel started that land grab and only returned the Sinai after becoming concerned about Egyptian power as manifested in the 1973 war. As for the original partitioning of Palestine, he never mentions the ethnic cleansing, murder, and rape of the indigenous Palestinian people (Canaanites).
Yes, TicTac, only the most radical measures will stand a chance of succeeding. :-)
Anonymous says:
“You should remember that Jews like Norman Finkelstein and Uri Avnery are some of Israel’s harshest critics. Just sayin’.”
Not really. It just looks that way because Jewish activism in media, academia, and law effectually silences criticism from non-Jews.
“even George W. Bush displaying his warmongeringest personna knew better than to kowtow to the zionist pressure to attack Iran.”
I think they were all geared up for an attack and then the CIA report was leaked about Iran not having any nuclear plans.
http://www.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,1691249,00.html
I guess it was leaked by elements in the US miltitary who were trying to stop any more wars while Iraq was still high tempo out of concern US forces would eventually be ground down by constant over-stretch.
If attacked, then Iran will assault shipping in the Strait of Hormuz, which will close it to oil exporting. The world is supposed to shut down and have its oil supply cut off because Israel does not want others in the region to have a deterrent to the country’s nuclear weapons. Such arrogance!
“For all we know, people like them ( Jewish critics of Israel ) are on the Mossad’s payroll.”
That’s the clever-Jews hedging their bets: Just incase their plans for world-domination fails, they can point to guys like Finkelstein and say: see, it wasn’t ALL jews who tried to destroy you… only some. And the rest of the tribe are left to get on exploiting the Goyim.
“It was primarily because of the functions of the Jews as the king’s revenue gatherers in the urban areas that the cities saw the Jews as the monarch’s agents, who treated them as objects of massive exploitation.”
Reminds me of a Nixon quote:
“What about the rich Jews? The IRS is full of Jews, Bob.” – http://writing.upenn.edu/~afilreis/Holocaust/nixon-antisemite.html
For what its worth, I think Finkelstein is legit. The man was blacklisted out of his job at DePaul by Zionists. He’s bitter, and seems to hate them with a vengeance. And there are others. Phil Weiss, for example. And Gilad Atzmon, who is regularly attacked as a full blown “anti-Semite.”
In all these cases, some of their anti-Zionism flows from their left-wing politics, but reading between the lines, it’s clear they know the score. (In the case of Atzmon, one doesn’t even need to read between the lines.) And often their anti-Zionism trumps their left-wing politics. For example, Weiss recently did a blog pointing up that Obama has basically been surrounded by Jewish money and handlers going back to his Chicago days.
http://mondoweiss.net/2010/08/jewish-voter-meme-is-journalistic-mystification.html
It’s not in the interests of Lefties to point this out, but he did it anyway.
I think Jewish anti-Zionists are going to be crucial in the fight to throw off the Zionist yoke, and should be welcomed and encouraged in the cause (but short of accepting their left-wing politics, of course).
Ultimately, Jewish anti-Zionists are progressives and anti-white. Something to keep in mind. Leftist Jews haven’t been kind to our people.
“I think Jewish anti-Zionists are going to be crucial in the fight to throw off the Zionist yoke, and should be welcomed and encouraged in the cause…”
Yes, yes. Perhaps they could control the “media wing” of the battle front and make sure nothing gets out of hand culturally.
Kevin, I wonder how much of historical antisemitism may have been a reaction to Jewish lending of money created from nothing (as with today’s central banks), requiring payment back of all principal plus interest, leading to default by borrowers (including governments), followed by foreclosure of assets, resulting in Jewish accumulation of wealth at the expense of the ignorant lower and middle classes that accept such a fraudulent, but legal, system.
You left out the part about how jews loan money created from nothing to each other. The FED gives bank charters to jews who then seek out more jews to loan money to buy up our country.
I checked and all of the top 20 corps that outsource US jobs have a quorum of jews on the board of directors. Jew bankers loan jews money from nothing to buy up our corporations and the jews send the jobs away as soon as they gain control.
I am of the opinion that the above behavior is the only thing that ever gets jews in trouble. Jews suffer on the whole for this mobs crimes because the avg jew will bend over backwards defending the jew banker mob.
|
Vicious, hate-filled jews scream for Iranian blood:
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=5338833404905532750#
|
Excellent mondoweiss link provided by Chris Moore:
“And in fact I grew up with scientist friends of my father saying to me that our numbers in American professions were the same as they had been in Vienna and Berlin before the Holocaust …”
I’d love to think that things are going to ‘blow up’ but Jews in the West are kidding nationalists (along with themselves) about the putative potential for a successful anti semitic movement . Anyone looking for precedents in Europe ought to be made aware that Germany turned to National Socialism in the aftermath of losing WW1 which demoralized the political elite and discredited them in the eyes of the masses. The Jewish issue was not really a big selling point of Hitler’s and in fact it was downplayed during the rise to power. The youth bulge was an important factor too.
What Jewish anti-Zionists demonstrate is that White anti-Zionists aren’t just a bunch of raving anti-Semites and neo-Nazis.
One of Jewry’s most effective tricks is to declare of critics, “Oh, they’re just anti-Semites out to get us and have always been.”
When they’re own children start setting out to “get” them, it becomes clear there’s something profoundly wrong with their culture.
Good link, Graham Wellington.
None of these Jews will fight, that’s for sure.
Talmudic Evil.
Any successful, forward-thinking Western culture will be considered anti-semitic if it is successful. What we need to do is not look out for it, but not care. Seriously, screw them all.
This article reveals massive Israeli manipulation of the US media.
http://original.antiwar.com/smith-grant/2010/08/17/the-israel-lobby-swims-the-atlantic/
Someday says:
“I’d love to think that things are going to ‘blow up’ but Jews in the West are kidding nationalists (along with themselves) about the putative potential for a successful anti semitic movement .”
The modern American technological state may wheeze, choke, shudder, and shake as it replaces its White population with non-Whites and tries to continue business as usual. This transition will necessarily cause great hardship to Whites. But still, I agree, an outright rebellion against the government, which is at this time more or less the same thing as an anti-Semitic movement, is unlikely to happen. Further, even if it did, it would almost certainly fail, for the following reasons.
1. America has become a national security/surveillance state.
The technological expansion of the last few decades has given the state almost unlimited power to keep tabs on any rebellious elements within itself. Just in today’s news:
http://infowars.net/articles/august2010/240810PreCrime.htm
http://blogs.forbes.com/andygreenberg/2010/08/24/full-body-scan-technology-deployed-in-street-roving-vans/
2. Overwhelming technological advantage of the state in firepower.
In 1776 and even 1865, the state had no weapons that the rebels didn’t have, or couldn’t easily manufacture. Not true today. Anyone thinking about opposing the state using conventional weapons will be seriously outgunned, easily tracked down, and crushed.
3. The state has almost everyone on its payroll.
People are very comfortable and, in one way or another, the state controls the paychecks of nearly everyone in America. People just won’t rebel against the power that signs their checks. Worse, the people who could potentially be of most use in a rebellion – the ex-military types – are paid off particularly well by the state, many of them retiring at a young age with full benefits and a large fraction of their salaries. Only a sudden, complete economic collapse could possibly change this. Even then, these would be among the last things the state would cut.
4. A lack of people willing to die for it, especially young people, who in all wars comprise the majority of the soldiers.
This is crucial. The wars in Iraq and Afghanistan have shown that even the fancy weaponry of the US military can be opposed by “insurgents” using only technologically primitive or improvised weapons. But they have to be willing to die for it, and Whites just aren’t. Further, it’s difficult, for me at least, to imagine any plausible scenarios under which they would become so. In part owing to the lack of authentic religion in modern life, plus an overall trend towards materialism, American Whites have become an unserious people. They live for today, have no collective sense of themselves, and believe essentially anything they are told by “authority.” If they have any principles at all besides an unshakeable belief in the equality of all races and genders, which in reality is only an expression of their own collective death wish, they keep it very well hidden.
5. Much finer propaganda technique and delivery systems allowing total state control.
The educational system and the mass media serve the state and work in tandem to keep the people misled and in the dark. Moreover, on the vast majority of people, the techniques they use are highly effective. By the time an individual reaches adulthood, the programming is so ingrained, and it works by appealing so well to inborn White weaknesses, that most are probably not recoverable under any conditions.
The internet is in some ways a small glimmer of hope in this darkness, but it’s also got problems. Communication over it isn’t secure, allowing the state to know the names and locations of all of its enemies, and cyber-action tends to become a substitute for action in the real world.
6. Impossibility of launching a guerrilla war where the people are hostile or
even neutral.
As Mao said, the guerrilla must “swim in the sea of the people”. Any sort of rebel force would need to have the covert support of at least a large fraction of Whites. The circumstances that could bring this about in the current context are impossible for me to visualize. Fanatic, hard core racist Whites are only an infinitesimally small part of the White population, and outside their tiny group, popular sympathies are all against them.
7. Innate egalitarian White bias.
This is the worst, the most intractable problem. Even if a White rebel force could surmount all of the other challenges listed above, and were able to create an ethnostate, if the people retained their innate egalitarian bias, all would eventually be undone.
90% of pogroms involved revolt with the gov’t trying to protect jews. The other 10% of pogroms involved democracies when the gov’t itself turned on jews because the complicit politicians were voted out of office.
I agree that a revolt will not win but sooner or later a new party will form and win power and the jews will be dealt with. The jews have never gotten away unscathed after their fiat currency crashes and unless US citizens are the dumbest people in the history of people we will follow suit after the crash of the US dollar.
“that our new American elite is substantially composed of ethnically conscious Jews with a heavy sprinkling of corrupt White people with no allegiance or loyalty to their own people” -KMac
Heavy sprinkling? How about the overwhelming majority of upperclass whites? A more honest statement surely. E-Z money is the tie that binds upperclass gentiles to the jews. You know it. I know it. You won’t publicly admit it. Why? Money. The hope is that somewhere exists a handful of wealthy whites of White feeling who may/might bankroll your research and the A3P Party if we don’t alienate them too terribly with the truth. Sorry, Prof, but that’s not going to happen. E-Z money and having a “White disposition” are mutually exclusive. This point is not worth debating. Your strategy, which would result in more Greet, Eat, and Retreating, has been tried and has failed repeatedly in the United States. This country is simply too large, its population centers are too dependant, power is too centralized, microchip technology is too pervasive, and there isn’t anything which resembles a unifying socioeconomic philosophy – not even a definition of White upon which to build a philosophy! – fortop-down (Internet) movement building to work. Wrap your mind around this and change – or fail.
It is pure racism for Jews to assume this black president will buy their garbage than a white president. Bush attacked Iraq not on their behalf, but for cheap oil or “free market” as they say. They are just throwing too much muck in the hope that some may stick.
The worst culprit of such media misinformation is New York Times with their gutterlicous journalist named Ethan Bronner or Shamir Olav as known to his handlers in Jerusalem.
Lots of warm feelings here for Norman Finklestein here. You should have no doubt that Norman Finklestien is completetly on board with the race-replacement of the Native Born White American Christian Majority with high fertility post-1965 nonwhites. I imagine that his race-replacement enthusiasm is on the same level as the Noam Chimsky and his daughter Aviva.
I didn’t mean Noam Chimsky the chimp…Noam Chomsky….
Many Jews hate Whites (consciously or sub-consciously) for the same reason White/Western/Christian-conscious Whites hate Jews: they see them as trying to eliminate their race and culture. Many left-wing Jews who are anti-White are catering to that race-preservation impulse, whether they acknowledge it or not. And it’s not totally irrational.
But the reason I don’t have much sympathy is that hateful, scurrilous and subversive Jewish culture and behavior is what inspires White/Western/Christian contempt towards Jewry to begin with. As I said above, on some level, elements of Jewry appear to be trying to do themselves in by relentlessly sticking it to their hosts, decade after decade, century after century, every chance they get.
Perhaps Finkelstein and certain other left-wing, anti-White, Jewish anti-Zionists have elected for the Samson option; but that doesn’t make their critiques of Jewry any less valid.
“Rather than present his own doubtless warmongering views, [Jeffrey Goldberg] slants his article as objective reportage on the mindset of Israel’s leaders, particularly Benjamin Netanayahu’s “belief … that Iran is not Israel’s problem alone; it is the world’s problem, and the world, led by the United States, is duty-bound to grapple with it.” — Kevin MacDonald
Dr. MacDonald elaborates on this moral universalism trick in this new video, “Jewish Moral Deception, Free Speech, and the Israel Lobby”:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Vdy2IsKKfqM
Kratos, what do you mean, Bush attacked Iraq for oil and not for the Zog. It is obvious to anyone with half a brain that Israel is hellbent on creating a new country called Kurdistan. If successful, this will mean seizing land from four of Israel’s regional neighbours, Iraq, Iran, Syria and Turkey. While three of these countries are Israel’s enemies, the place of Turkey is problematic. Although Israel/Turkey have long had a strategic partnership, this has now been sundered, and there is only one reason why, Kurdistan. Here comes Eretz Israel!