Dear friends,
I am reposting here an article I have written for Russia Insider which itself is based on something I wrote for this blog in the past. So while hardly new, this is the most updated iteration of my thinking on this topic. I think that this topic is important, crucial really, and this is why I think that revisiting it on a regular basis makes sense.
The Saker
——-
One of the issues over which I am most vehemently criticized, even by well-meaning friends, is my use of the term “AngloZionist”.
After carefully parsing all the arguments of my critics, I wrote a special explanatory note on my blog two years ago, in order to make sure that my argument leaves no room for misunderstanding.
I reproduce it below as a (rather long) introduction to the article which follows, which is essentially a further development of the ideas in my 2014 post.
“To learn who rules over you, simply find out who you are not allowed to criticize“
– Voltaire
(The following quoted section is from the Saker’s blog (with slight modifications), from September 2014)
Why do I speak of “AngloZionists”? I got that question many times in the past, so I am making a separate post about it to (hopefully) explain this once and for all.
1) Anglo:
The USA in an Empire. With roughly 1000 overseas bases (depends on how you count), an undeniably messianic ideology, a bigger defense-offense budget then the rest of the planet combined, 16+ spy agencies, the dollar as the world’s currency, there is no doubt that the US is a planetary Empire.
Where did the US Empire come from? Again, that’s a no-brainer – from the British Empire. Furthermore, the US Empire is really based on a select group of nations: the Echelon countries, Australia, Canada, New Zealand, the UK and, of course, the US. What do these countries have in common? They are the leftovers of the British Empire and they are all English speaking. Notice that France, Germany or Japan are not part of this elite even though they are arguably as important or more to the USA then, say, New Zealand and far more powerful.
So the “Anglo” part is undeniable. And yet, even though “Anglo” is an ethnic/linguistic/cultural category while “Zionist” is a political/ideological one, very rarely do I get an objection about speaking of “Anglos” or the “Anglosphere”.
2) Zionist:
Let’s take the (hyper politically correct) Wikipedia definition of what the word “Zionism” means: it is “a nationalist movement of Jews and Jewish culture that supports the creation of a Jewish homeland in the territory defined as the Land of Israel“. Apparently, no link to the US, the Ukraine or Timbuktu, right? But think again. Why would Jews – whether defined as a religion or an ethnicity – need a homeland anyway? Why can’t they just live wherever they are born, just like Buddhist (a religion) or the African Bushmen (ethnicity) who live in many different countries?
The canonical answer is that Jews have been persecuted everywhere and that therefore they need their own homeland to serve as a safe haven in case of persecutions. Without going into the issue of why Jews were persecuted everywhere and, apparently, in all times, this rationale clearly implies if not the inevitability of more persecutions or, at the very least, a high risk thereof. Let’s accept that for demonstration sake and see what this, in turn, implies.
First, that implies that Jews are inherently threatened by non-Jews who are all at least potential anti-Semites. The threat is so severe that a separate Gentile-free homeland must be created as the only, best and last way to protect Jews worldwide. This, in turn, implies that the continued existence of this homeland should become a vital and irreplaceable priority of all Jews worldwide lest a persecution suddenly breaks out and they have nowhere to go. Furthermore, until all Jews finally “move up” to Israel, they had better be very, very careful as all the goyim around them could literally come down with a sudden case of genocidal anti-Semitism at any moment. Hence all the anti-anti-Semitic organizations a la ADL or UEJF, the Betar clubs, the networks of sayanim, etc.
In other words, far from being a local “dealing with Israel only” phenomenon, Zionism is a worldwide movement whose aim is to protect Jews from the apparently incurable anti-Semitism of the rest of the planet.
As Israel Shahak correctly identified it, Zionism postulates that Jews should “think locally and act globally” and when given a choice of policies they should always ask THE crucial question: “But is it good for Jews?“.
So far from being only focused on Israel, Zionism is really a global, planetary, ideology which unequivocally splits up all of mankind into two groups (Jews and Gentiles). It assumes the latter are all potential genocidal maniacs (which is racist) and believes that saving Jewish lives is qualitatively different and more important than saving Gentile lives (which is racist again).
Anyone doubting the ferocity of this determination should either ask a Palestinian or study the holiday of Purim, or both. Even better, read Gilad Atzmon and look up his definition of what is brilliantly called “pre-traumatic stress disorder”
3) Anglo-Zionist:
The British Empire and the early USA used to be pretty much wall-to-wall Anglo. Sure, Jews had a strong influence (in banking for example), but Zionism was a non-issue not only among non-Jews, but also among US Jews. Besides, religious Jews were often very hostile to the notion of a secular Israel while secular Jews did not really care about this quasi-Biblical notion.
WWII gave a massive boost to the Zionist movement while, as Norman Finkelstein explained it, the topic of the “Holocaust” became central to Jewish discourse and identity only many years later. I won’t go into the history of the rise to power of Jews in the USA, but from roughly Ford to GW Bush’s Neocons it has been steady. And even though Obama initially pushed the Neocons out, they came right back in through the backdoor. Right now, the only question is whether US Jews have more power than US Anglos or the other way around.
Before going any further, let me also immediately say that I am not talking about Jews or Anglos as a group, but I am referring to the top 1% within each of these groups. Furthermore, I don’t believe that the top 1% of Jews cares any more about Israel or the 99% of Jews than the top 1% of Anglos care about the USA or the Anglo people.
So, here is my thesis:
The US Empire is run by a 1% (or less) elite which can be called the “deep state” which is composed of two main groups: Anglos and Jews. These two groups are in many ways hostile to each other (just like the SS and SA or Trotskysts and Stalinists), but they share 1) a racist outlook on the rest of mankind 2) a messianic ideology 3) a phenomenal propensity for violence 4) an obsession with money and greed and its power to corrupt. So they work together almost all the time.
Now this might seem basic, but so many people miss it, that I will have to explicitly state it:
To say that most US elites are Anglos or Jews does not mean that most Anglos or Jews are part of the US elites. That is a straw-man argument which deliberately ignores the non commutative property of my thesis to turn it into a racist statement which accuses most/all Anglos or Jews of some evil doing. So to be very clear:
When I speak of AngloZionist Empire I am referring to the predominant ideology of the 1%ers, the elites which form the Empire’s “deep state”.
By the way, there are non-Jewish Zionists (Biden, in his own words) and there are plenty of anti-Zionist Jews. Likewise, there are non-Anglo imperialists and there are plenty of anti-imperialists Anglos. To speak of “Nazi Germany” or “Soviet Russia” does in no way imply that all Germans were Nazis or all Russians Communists. All this means it that the predominant ideology of these nations at that specific moment in time was National-Socialism and Marxism, that’s all.
My personal opinion now:
First, I don’t believe that Jews are a race or an ethnicity. I have always doubted it, but reading Shlomo Sand really convinced me. Jews are not defined by religion either (most/many are secular). Truly, Jews are a tribe (which Oxford Dictionaires defines as: a social division in a traditional society consisting of families or communities linked by social, economic, religious, or blood ties, with a common culture and dialect, typically having a recognized leader). A group one can chose to join (Elizabeth Taylor) or leave (Gilad Atzmon).
In other words, I see “Jewishness” as a culture, or ideology, or education or any other number of things, but not something rooted in biology. I fully agree with Atzmon when he says that Jews can be racist, but that does not make them a race.
Second, I don’t even believe that the concept of “race” has been properly defined and, hence, that it has any objective meaning. I therefore don’t differentiate between human beings on the basis of an undefined criterion.
Third, since being Jew (or not) is a choice: to belong, adhere and endorse a tribe (secular Jews) or a religion (Judaics). Any choice implies a judgment call and it therefore a legitimate target for scrutiny and criticism.
Fourth, I believe that Zionism, even when secular, instrumentalizes the values, ideas, myths and ethos of rabbinical Judaism (aka “Talmudism” or “Phariseeism”) and both are racist in their core value and assumptions.
Fifth, both Zionism and Nazism are twin brothers born from the same ugly womb: 19th century European nationalism (Brecht was right, “The belly is still fertile from which the foul beast sprang”). Nazis and Zionists can hate each other to their hearts’ content, but they are still twins.
Sixth, I reject any and all form of racism as a denial of our common humanity, a denial of the freedom of choice of each human being and – being an Orthodox Christian – as a heresy (a form of iconoclasm, really). To me people who chose to identify themselves with, and as, Jews are not inherently different from any other human and they deserve no more and no fewer rights and protections than any other human being.
I will note here that while the vast majority of my readers are Anglos, they almost never complain about the “Anglo” part of my “AngloZionist” term. The vast majority of objections focus on the “Zionist” part. You might want to think long and hard about why this is so and what it tells us about the kind of power Zionists have over the prevailing ideology. Could it be linked to the reason why the (openly racist and truly genocidal) Israeli Prime Minister gets more standing ovations in Congress (29) than the US President (25)? Probably, but this is hardly the full story.
(This is the end of the 2014 blog entry. The current article begins below)
It is undeniable that Jews did suffer persecutions in the past and that the Nazis horribly persecuted Jews during WWII. This is important because nowadays we are all conditioned to associate and even identify any criticism of Jews or Zionist with the kind of anti-Jewish and anti-Zionist rhetoric which the Nazis used to justify their atrocities. This is quite understandable, but it is also completely illogical because what this reaction is based on is the implicit assumption that any criticism of Jews or Zionist must be Nazi in its argumentation, motives, goals or methods. This is beyond ridiculous.
Saint John Chrysostom (349 – 407), the “Golden Mouth” of early Christianity, recognized as one of the greatest saints in history by both Orthodox Christians and Roman Catholics, authored a series of homilies, Kata Ioudaiōn, which are extremely critical of Jews, yet no sane person would accuse him of being a Nazi. Chrysostom was hardly alone. Other great saints critical of Jews include Saint Cyprian of Carthage, Saint Gregory of Nyssa, Saint Ephrem the Syrian, Saint Ambrose of Milan, Saint Justin Martyr and many others.
But if these saints were not Nazis, maybe they still were racist, no? That, of course, depends on your definition of ‘racism’. Here is my own:
First, racism is, in my opinion, not so much the belief that various human groups are different from each other, say like dog breeds can be different, but the belief that the differences between human groups are larger than similarities within the group.
Second, racism is also a belief that the biological characteristics of your group somehow pre-determine your actions/choices/values in life.
Third, racism often, but not always, assumes a hierarchy amongst human groups (Germanic Aryans over Slavs or Jews, Jews over Gentiles, etc.)
I reject all three of these assumptions because I believe that God created all humans with the same purpose and that we are all “brothers in Adam”, that we all equally share the image (eternal and inherent potential for perfection) of God (as opposed to our likeness to Him, which is our temporary and changing individual condition).
By that definition, the Church Fathers were most definitely not racists as their critique was solely aimed at the religion of the Jews, not at their ethnicity (which is hardly surprising since Christ and His Apostles and most early Christians were all “ethnic” Jews). This begs the question of whether criticizing a religion is legitimate or not.
I submit that anything resulting from an individual choice is fair game for criticism. Even if somebody is “born into” a religious community, all adults come to the point in life where they make a conscious decision to endorse or reject the religion they were “born into”. Being a Christian, a Muslim or a Jew (in the sense of “Judaic”) is always a personal decision. The same applies to political views. One chooses to become a Marxist or a Monarchist or a Zionist. And since our individual decisions do, indeed, directly impact our other choices in life, it is not racist or objectionable to criticize Christianity, Islam, Judaism, Marxism, Monarchism or Zionism. Criticizing any one of them, or even all of them, in no way denies our common humanity which is something which racism always does.
Having said all that, none of the above addresses a most important, but rarely openly discussed, issue: what if, regardless of all the arguments above, using expressions such as “AngloZionism” offends some people (Jews or not), what if the use of this term alienates them so much that it would make them unwilling to listen to any argument or point of view using this expression?
This is a very different issue, not an ethical, moral or philosophical one – but a practical one: is it worth losing readers, supporters and even donors for the sake of using an expression which requires several pages of explanations in its defense? This issue is one every blogger, every website, every alternative news outlet has had to struggle with. I know that I got more angry mails over this than over any other form of crimethink I so often engage in.
I will readily admit that there is a cost involved in using the term “AngloZionist Empire”. But that cost needs to be compared to the cost of *not* using that term.
Is there anybody out there who seriously doubts the huge role the so-called “Israel Lobby” or the “Neocons” or, to use the expression of Professor James Petras, the “Zionist Power Configuration” plays in modern politics? Twenty years ago – maybe. But not today. We all are perfectly aware of the “elephant in the room”, courtesy not only of courageous folks like Gilad Atzmon, Israel Shahak or Norman Finkelstein but even such mainstream Anglo personalities as John J. Mearsheimer , Stephen M. Walt or even Jimmy Carter.
It is plain silly to pretend that we don’t know when we all know that we all know.
Pretending that we don’t see this elephant in the room makes us look either subservient to that elephant, or simply like a coward who dares not speak truth to power. In other words, if you do want to shoot your credibility, pretend really hard that you are totally unaware of the elephant in the room: some of your sponsors might love you, but everybody else will despise you.
What about the very real risk of being perceived as some kind of Nazi?
Yes, the risk is there, but only if you allow yourself to flirt with racist or even para-racist notions. But if you are categorical in your rejection of any form of racism (including any form of anti-Jewish racism), then the accusation will simply not stick. Oh sure, the Zionists out there will try hard to make you look like a Nazi, but they will fail simply because they will have nothing to base that accusation on other than some vague “overtones” or “lack of sensitivity”. In my experience, people are not that stupid and they rapidly see through that worn-out accusation of “anti-Semitism” ( a meaningless concept to begin with, as Michael Neumann so brilliantly demonstrates in his essay “What is Antisemitism?”).
The truth is that the Zionists are only as powerful as we allow them to be. If we allow them to scare us into silence, then indeed their power is immense, but if we simply demand that they stop treating some humans as “more equal than others” then their own racism suddenly becomes obvious for all to see and their power vanishes.
It is really that simple: since nobody can accuse a real anti-racist of racism, then truly being an anti-racist gives you an immunity against the accusation of anti-Semitism.
So what we need, at this point, is to consider the terms used.
“Israel Lobby” suffers from several major issues. First, it implies that the folks in this lobby really care about Israel and the people of Israel. While some probably do, we also have overwhelming evidence (such as the testimony of Sibel Edmonds) that many/most folks in the “Israel Lobby” use the topic of Israel for their own, very different goals (usually power, often money). Have the people of Israel really benefited from from the Neocon-triggered wars? I doubt it.
Furthermore, when hearing the word “Israel Lobby” most people will think of a lobby in the US Congress, something like the NRA or the AARP. The problem we are dealing with today is clearly international. Bernard Henri Levi, George Soros or Mikhail Khodorkovsky have no connection to AIPAC or the US Congress. “Zionist Power Configuration” is better, but “configuration” is vague. What we are dealing with is clearly an empire. Besides, this is clearly not only a Zionist Empire, the Anglo component is at least as influential, so why only mention one and not both?
Still, I don’t think that we should get too caught up in semantics here. From my point of view, there are two truly essential issues which need to be addressed:
1) We need to start talking freely about the “elephant in the room” and stop fearing reprisals from those who want us to pretend we don’t see it.
2) We need to stop using politically correct euphemisms in the vain hope that those who want us to shut up will accept them. They won’t.
Currently, much of the discourse on Jewish or Zionist topics is severely restricted. Doubting the obligatory “6 million” murdered Jews during WWII can land in you jail in several European countries. Ditto if you express any doubts about the actual mode of executions (gas chambers vs firing squads and disease) of these Jews. “Revisionism”, as asking such questions is now known, is seen either as a crime or, at least, a moral abomination, even though “revisionism” is what all real historians do: historiography is revisionistic by its very nature. But even daring to mention such truisms immediately makes you a potential Nazi in the eyes of many/most people.
Since when is expressing a doubt an endorsement of an ideology? This is crazy, no?
I personally came to the conclusion that the West became an easy victim of such “conceptual hijackings” because of a sense of guilt about having let the Nazis murder so many European Jews without taking any meaningful action. It is a fact that it was the Soviet Union which carried 80% or more of the burden of destroying Hitler’s war machine: most Europeans resisted shamefully little. As for the Anglos, they waited until the Soviet victory before even entering the war in Europe.
Okay, fine – let those who feel guilty feel guilty (even if I personally don’t believe in collective guilt). But we cannot allow them to try to silence those of us who strongly feel that we are guilty of absolutely nothing!
Do we really have to kowtow to all Jews, including the top 1% of Jews who, like all 1%ers, do not care about the rest of the 99%? How long are we going to continue to allow the top 1% of Jews enjoy a bizarre form of political immunity because they hide behind the memory of Jews murdered during WWII or the political sensitivities of the 99% of Jews with whom they have no real connection anyway?
I strongly believe that all 1%ers are exactly the same: they care about themselves and nobody else. Their power, what I call the AngloZionist Empire, is based on two things: deception and violence. Their worldview is based on one of two forms of messianism: Anglo imperialism and Zionism (which is just a secularized version of Judaic racial exceptionalism). This has nothing to do with Nazism, WWII or anti-Semitism and everything with ruthless power politics. Unless we are willing to call a spade a spade we will never be able to meaningfully oppose this Empire or the 1%ers who run it.
In truth, since we owe them nothing except our categorical rejection and opposition. It is, I believe, our moral duty to shed a powerful light on their true nature and debunk the lies they try so hard to hide behind.
If their way is by deception, then ours ought to be by truth, because, as Christ said, the truth shall make us free.
Euphemisms only serve to further enslave us.
The Saker
Dear Saker, call them “The Natoists” and all world will follow you. NATO is the enemy number one for Russia and the Russian people. The Nato-ist has the same ending like social-ist , fascist, nazist…etc. The Natoists are the enemy of Europe….there is no more suitable name than The Natoist……Not very long ago, the Natoists used to write : communist Poland, Communist Cuba, Communist Russia etc…but from the “communist side” they never said : Natoist Germany or natoist Holland…etc. …Now it is time to correct the mistake….
You desperately need to promote “term” you have “invented”. Please stop with it, I beg you.
I think the term is cool.
It might be a nightmare for “the West”.
I was born in England, my family in the last 2 or 3 generations were all from England and I have no issues with the term in fact it seemed very accurate and succinct for me and started using it myself.
Several generations back some of my family emigrated to England from Wales, Scotland, Ireland, Germany and Denmark. I am not happy about what the AngloZionists have done and continue to do to Scotland, Wales, Ireland and Germany-suppressing their culture, independence and economies for Anglo hegemony. (Not to mention the violence through history directed at these people in these countries)
But most importantly for me is the Enclosure Acts from the 1600s-1800s, a series of parliamentary acts that literally enclosed open common lands that had been used by the common man for centuries. These acts gave ownership and title of the land to aristocrats and forced the common people off the land and into the factories formed by the industrial revolution where they worked as labourers in the factories owned by the same aristocratic class.
The biggest injustice facing the English and British people as I see it is this: If I were to mention my opposition to the Enclosure Acts today to a British person, I would be surprised if 1 in a 100 even knew what I was talking about or would even care! They have succeeded in controlling the minds and emotions of tens if not hundreds of millions of people and people are apathetic about it.
So when Saker uses the term AngloZionist I think he is referring to that class of people that not only took my ancestors common land, destroyed our way of life so they could industrialize the country for profit but brainwashed my people through the media, the education system and other propaganda methods that caused people to forget the tragedy and criminality that was forced upon them. This class of people have tried to control the world using the same legal and financial chicanery sprinkled with doses of violence and terrorism when it suited them. They used these same methods on my people a few centuries ago.
The AngloZionists are a class of aristocratic financiers and lawyers that have to connection to any particular country or culture and they don’t act in the best interests of the people in the countries where they happen to reside.
So when Saker uses the term AngloZionist I think he is referring to that class of people that not only took my ancestors common land, destroyed our way of life so they could industrialize the country for profit but brainwashed my people through the media, the education system and other propaganda methods that caused people to forget the tragedy and criminality that was forced upon them.
Absolutely and totally correct, of course!
No, sorry, I’m afraid it isn’t. Our whole modern way of life stems from the Industrial Revolution, which certainly happened first in Britain. That’s good,not bad, on the whole. Otherwise throw away your car and ride a horse. And it’s true that the enclosure acts were hard on the rural population and happened often about the same time as the Industrial Revolution. But there was certainly no causal connection. The businessmen who built the first modern factories were certainly not landowners and they generated their own capital, as people with new ideas aways have to.
The Industrial Revolution was preceded by the Agricultural Revolution and the enclosures were part of that latter process. But the Agricultural Revolution was much more than just enclosure. Because of new farming techniques, British agriculture became more efficient than agriculture in any other country. Subsistence farming became a thing of the past. The countryside started to produce a surplus of food to feed the expanding population of the towns. There have been hard times in Britain since, sometimes, but we broke away decisively from the cycle of periodical famines which had been typical of human existence previously, ever since the origins of agriculture. Good, surely?
What I am writing is quite simply history and not really subject to disagreement among historians.
“Otherwise throw away your car and ride a horse.”
http://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2014/09/the-industrial-revolution-and-its-discontents/379781/
“All of this is to say that the simple-minded narrative of progress needs to be rethought. This is not a new idea: In fact, critics of industrialization lived throughout the Industrial Revolution, even if their message was often drowned out by the clanking sounds of primitive engines. In their own particular ways, thinkers and activists as diverse as Thomas Malthus, Friedrich Engels, the Luddites, John Stuart Mill, Henry David Thoreau, William Wordsworth, and John Muir criticized some or all aspects of the Industrial Revolution. The narrative of industrial-growth-as-progress that became the story of the period occurred despite their varied protestations. The Luddites questioned the necessity of machines that put so many people out of work. Engels questioned the horrendous living and working conditions experienced by the working classes and drew links between economic changes, social inequality, and environmental destruction. Thoreau questioned the need for modern luxuries. Mill questioned the logic of an economic system that spurred endless growth. Muir revalorized the natural world, which had been seen as little more than a hindrance to wealth creation and the spread of European settler societies around the globe.
These figures have provided wisdom and intellectual inspiration to the sustainability movement. John Stuart Mill and John Muir, for instance, have each been “rediscovered” in recent decades, respectively, by ecological economists and environmentalists in search of a historical lineage. For the sustainability-minded thinkers of the present day, it was these figures, and others like them, who were the true visionaries of the age”
Exactly. What you write simply reflects the views of an “official” history, a very safe way to see the things. But it´s also totally false. It´s not about the cars or industrial revolution. It´s about the destruction of the old world, destruction of the cultural values, identity, nations, religions, I suspect that in a long run even languages. Final target will be the One World, or how do you want to call it. Spiritually dead zombie world. Today it´s quite easy to notice this progress all around. I´m truly astonished that someone who thinks like you reads this blog. And by the way, I would love to ride a horse, instead driving a car.
But the zombie world will never materialize. Those people behind it, who ever they are, only cause a massive war on earth or their power will be destroyed, one way or another. I would call that power the Great Babylon, and in the Bible there´s some excellent descriptions about it, for example Rev 18 speaks about it.
“Euphemisms only serve to further enslave us.” This is absolutely true. That´s why we need accurate definitions. Definitions that all can accept. And yes, I understand that for those that are not very religious, the Great Babylon can be a bit difficult definition. So this is something to think for all of us. Great article from Saker, again. God bless you my Christian brother.
@Annonnymy on February 03, 2016 · at 5:32 pm UTC
Thank you to make it more clear for the rest of this blog readers because the way we are heading is the total destruction of this earth from greed and machinations.
Obviously Saker is criticized because he has hit the right nail and the truth is sometimes painful. There is still hope for the humanity to bring in the supressed technologies for all of us.
What is frightening right now is the threat of taking all cash out of circulation. “They” (the Jewish Money Power) are about to impose a “cashless system” on the World.
It is mind boggling to me. It seems to me that they will have TOTAL CONTROL over us all. We will lose all political freedom.
How are we to survive such a terrifying system?
I think we all need to understand that the Jews are going for broke this time. God help us all.
there is another solution tyrants
“It´s about the destruction of the old world, destruction of the cultural values, identity, nations, religions, I suspect that in a long run even languages. ”
And, most important IMO, it’s about the destruction of individual lives in the past. Lives that were not “destined” to be sacrificed for the supposed good of later generations’ improved life styles.
If Mike Munford wants to sacrifice himself for future generations, he is free to do so. Just killing himself would relieve some of the pressure of overpopulation. But it is really creepy to write off the injustices done to others in the past because they benefited us!!! Like Madeleine Albright’s “It was worth it” to contribute to the deaths of 500,000 infants (I think that was the number).
Raise thy eyes up from thy navel!
Katherine
As a natural romantic like yourself, I also am sympathetic to the destruction of so much that’s irreplaceable, and then when I survey today’s world, see we’ve gained so little. I despise cars, always have, ever since I was shoved three in the back of an old Datson Sunny on family outings, which were frequent as we lived in a village. At the arrival of every destination I was thoroughly nauseous. And it was Hell to be so enclosed next to my hated little brother.
But i’m always brought back down to Earth by dentistry. Whenever I fancy I could have roughed it in days of old, I remember, no dentists! I would have killed myself before I hit 21.
But though Saker is 99% on target here, this Anglo ‘lust for empire’ is a red herring. It nonsense. We Brits had an empire, a proper one. This depraved Jewish monstrosity of Anglo-Zionism, a name I like, is simply the USA’s domination over us and our dependents, and the Zio-domination of America. Nothing more.
This is simple-minded thinking. It is not the case that technological progress just had to take a particular form or there would have been stasis. And your claim that “there was certainly no causal connection” is simply false (as is your claim that, basically, the people who got the industrial revolution going weren’t rich or landowners before that–as is always and forever the case, there are a few “rags to riches” stories but the Horatio Alger myth is for the most part just that, and most who get to home base were born on third or maybe second).
What ended up becoming the industrialists of the industrial revolution gained wealth and power gradually, and by the time the enclosures got into serious gear they already had a fair bit, and were using it. The reality is that there were two constituencies driving the enclosures, and the aristocrats wanting more land were if anything less important than the new men wanting labour from a population unwilling to sell it as long as they could make ends meet on their farms. Thus people had to be driven off the land and left destitute in order for them to be forced to fall back on low-waged labour so that profits could be made. Thinkers of the time, such as the early economist James Steuart, wrote fairly explicitly about this.
We should also not forget that nearly everything which made the results of the industrial revolution pretty good for a lot of people, was the result of actions by the same people who resisted the industrial revolution. In the absence of trade unionism, Chartism, and socialist and anarchist radicals of all stripes, the results of the industrial revolution in England, Canada, the US etc. would very likely be much more like today’s Indonesia or Bangladesh (where such people are largely absent, in Indonesia mainly due to large scale slaughter by a US-backed dictator a few decades ago)–which is to say, actively worse for most than medieval conditions.
In fact, the earliest part of the “industrial revolution” was not even a technological phenomenon, but an organizational one; if you look at Adam Smith’s description of the “pin factory” in Wealth of Nations there are no steam engines or capital-intensive machines; it is all about the wonders of division of labour, an early version of Taylorite/Fordist ideas about how to do production. But in the end, all these ideas have less to do with productivity than with power: In the early days, breaking the power of the craft guilds, in the later days, more completely dominating the worker. The really important part of the “pin factory” is not that labour is divided, but that it is divided by bosses, who are empowered by owners, rather than the people doing the work having any power over how they divide that work. Smith himself was quite candid about how bad this was for the people involved.
The myth of the industrial revolution is that it was all about progress. The reality is that it was about who would profit from that progress. Or to put it a different way, the advent of capitalism was in itself progress–but it was progress in finding more efficient ways to use the lower classes and suck the surplus out of them more completely, not progress in technology. And luckily it was somewhat uneven, and occasionally backfired or otherwise failed. Otherwise, we’d all be lumpen proles working 12 hour days and living in hotbedding dorms or shantytowns.
Your right. And in reality the industrial revolution “was” a great deal like Bangladeshi and Indonesian factories. It was only in the latter parts of that time that labor movements were permitted to even exist. There is a set of books about the US by John Jakes .They aren’t really my type of books.But very accurate in explaining the industrial revolution period in the US. It was a horrible life for the millions that suffered through it (which the World’s elite would gladly return us to). And the part mentioned in a post above about the advances in farming in that period allowing the UK to avoid famines,isn’t true . The UK was the World’s largest “importer” of food in that period.They imported huge amounts of food from (non-industrialized) Ireland. And later were the biggest buyer of grain and meat from (non-industrialized) Argentina.As well as from all over the British Empire. Why would people think the Germans in WWI and WWII were so intent on the U-Boot campaigns against the UK. They knew they could starve the British if they couldn’t get the food shipments from overseas.It was only the advances in farming after WWII in the World that has allowed that to change.Not advances made from the industrial revolution.Population growth from industrialization outstripped any farming advances that destroying the free farming class brought the elite landlords.
@Uncle Bob 1
Yes, one hears a lot about the “advnaces” and “efficiency” of farming in the UK.
WEll, the beuatiful and nature-rich British countryside (I admit, beautiful also post-enclosures, but I was born when I was born) is being destroyed by agribusiness. Thousands of kms of hedgerows have been ripped out to create megafields a la Kansas.
If you want to see REALLY efficient agriculture, go to the Netherlands, where they first created the land, then the intensive horticultural and agricultural technology—low tech combined with high tech–to make their country the second-most important food exporter in teh world, behind the USA (in $billions of the export trade). IRussia should send teams of agriculturalists to teh Netherlands for five-year apprenticeships.
Katherine
Maybe,but a huge amount of that is in flower related exports.I don’t think there would be a huge advantage for Russia in exporting flowers to Europe. Already Russia is a World power in grain exports Worldwide. I would think it is in meat (and cheese) and smaller vegetable farming that could be improved on the most. I doubt other than maybe with a few temperate fruits there is anyway (unless hothouses) to get around importing fruit.But really every country imports foods that they can’t easily grow themselves. And exports foods they can grow in abundance. Russia’s main problems in agriculture ,seems to me,is the same problem they have with industry.The lack of capital from banks,and the governmental will to correct that problem.
Now might be the place to comment on a controversial thought that I believe. For all the differences between peoples and societies in the US and Russia. They share the same problem internally (actually most of the World shares the same problem),the rule of an elite.The important difference between the two is though,in the US most of the people “accept” that. And believe its right and normal. As shown by a couple of old popular sayings in the US,” Money talks,and BS walks” and “Remember the Golden Rule,those with the Gold Rule.” So that even the educated in the US don’t question (we here are a vast minority),the rule of the wealthy. In the US its only questioned as to “which” wealthy rule us. In Russia,it seems,the majority of the people don’t mentally “accept” that as a truism. Its a minority there that do. The people are forced to accept that their elite have power. But they don’t “buy into” the ideology of the wealthy “should” rule.I think that goes back to the socialism of the previous era. But because of that there is a “hiding and secret shame” over the wealth of the elite. In the US its out in the open and glorified. That doesn’t mean that people in Russia don’t know about their wealthy elite. Just the opposite,they are quite aware of them. Its just not approved of by the populace at large.Certainly in the US there are plenty of people that don’t approve of them either. But most don’t connect the “excesses” of our wealthy to the “system”. And so blame the individuals involved for it. But in Russia,as well as blaming individuals,people blame the system that created them for their excesses. How those differences will “play out” in time,I don’t know. Will we become more like them in that thinking? (I hope so) Or will they sink down to our thinking with time? (I certainly hope not)
@ Uncle Bob and flowers.
Please, don’t be silly re Russia and exporting flowers.
For starters, I think the main portion of the flower-related exports are bulbs, not flowers per se. And I think the bulbs are produced in fields, not in greenhouses. And other nursery products (plants). But this flowers” thing is a silly digression, UB1. I don’t think you know that much about the Dutch Horticultural industry, or agriculture generally.
To move on to something sensible:
For some reason you say “unless hothouses.” Why? Of course greenhouses. How else??
Check this out:
https://www.google.com/search?q=netherlands+greenhouses&biw=1253&bih=768&tbm=isch&tbo=u&source=univ&sa=X&sqi=2&ved=0ahUKEwiho9-9-97KAhWGeT4KHWh4CsMQ7AkIOw
This is serious food production, not “vegetable plots” And I have nothing against vegetable plots, but the thread had veered into the subject of *efficient agriculture*. in connectoin with the UK. That was the only reason I mentioned the Netherlands.
You are really missing the point with your “explanation” of grain exports. The advanced horticultural and agricultural technology in the Netherlands is also responsible for the enormous amounts of fresh vegetables etc. raised there. And you mention “small vegetable plots.” I don’t think you now that much about this sector, nor perhaps also not too much about nutrition.
The Netherlands are the world’s top exporter of vegetables.
https://www.government.nl/latest/news/2015/01/16/dutch-agricultural-exports-top-80-billion-euros
There is no reason that this extensive greenhouse technolgoy is not transferrable to Russia, or any other country interested in improving its own food supply and nutritional profile, not to mention also developing an export sector—including flowers. I just picked Russia out of the hat because most readers here, I think, have a special interest in Russia.
It is, however, true that the Dutch govt has supoprted teh research and infrastructure that have resulted in this incredible productivity. And in other advances, such as engineering.
Katherine
This was the “entire” portion of my post that answered your statement on the Netherlands,” Maybe,but a huge amount of that is in flower related exports.I don’t think there would be a huge advantage for Russia in exporting flowers to Europe. ” The rest of my comment concerned what Russia needed to do in agriculture (in my opinion). How you came up with thinking I was discussing the Netherlands with the rest of my post is beyond my understanding.I would suggest rereading it to understand clearly.As for the greenhouse (hothouse) part of it. To grow many other, “un-natural” for the climate plants, they would need something like that. They aren’t cheap and can be complicated. There is no need to build something like that when you have millions of miles of territory to grow many,many,types of plants. And for the very limited plants you would grow in those buildings you could import them instead. It astounds me that some countries build expense systems to grow crops grown naturally in other areas easily. Here is an example for you. In the US some of the biggest cotton producing regions today are in the US Southwest. They have to bring in water to irrigate those fields since there isn’t enough natural rain for them. They use so much water that they are having to bring it from Canada. While the home of cotton,the American South (where it is grown naturally with rainwater) the farmers aren’t able to make a good living anymore from it (or at least what they once did). So the new dry lands in the Southwest are now being destroyed,and the scarce waters of that region used up. While the naturally watered farmlands aren’t used.Its insane,but then that comes from capitalism making a “quick buck”.
Katherine. I don’t think Netherlands agriculture full of pesticides and GMO (worst in EU) is compatible with the Russian goal of no GMO and organic production….
Katherine, I suggest that you – and the other praisers here of modern hitech industrialism and industagri, of the climate-shift-doomed-Nederlands kind – study up on the concept of EROEI: energy return on energy invested. (Doing a search on the name of Charles Hall is a good starting point. Here’s one suggestion):
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=__CCBI1K3Ro
When you have that idea well in mind, come back and explain to us just how modern industagri is more ‘efficient’, or some sort of ‘progress’. (Ah those holy ideas of today’s dominant world religion: eega-beeva strictlymaterialist-scientism! :) Explain too how it will be seriously sustainable into the far future, as compared to subsistence agriculture and the modest peasant lifestyle that goes with it.
Incidentally, it’s the non-negotiable realities of EROEI, based as they are on the physically-fundamental Laws of Thermodynamics, that are now already started on their conclusive demolition job – continuing over the next century or two – on the holy idea of ‘progress’. If we’re really, really lucky the survivors of these de-industrialising global upheavals will be able to support themselves in some – preferably permacultural – variant of subsistence agriculture once again, after the rubble has stopped bouncing. (h/t to JMGreer for that droll metaphor!)
We now (hope to) return this thread to Saker’s original topic of Anglozionist imperialism…
Uncle Bob said:
“(I hope so)”
There’s certainly more that we agree on than not – it is primarily a class war and while we are not born in a bubble (with it’s attendant culture & inheritance / history) we should all certainly try to become more Alien like.
I’m not yet quite sure if “(I hope so)” means you consider there could be something better to hope for than a benevolent monarch but I sense some hope.
Brilliant.
industrial revolution was fianced by a loot from colonies.
english have always been a parasite tribe.
The wonders of the agricultural revolution in India and Africa are not universally accepted. Blaming famine entirely on agricultural practices overlooks the economic and political causes. Historians, like economists, are all too often apologists for empire, for a fee, of course. Ethnocentric bullshit!
True! Its often “forgotten” (if it is even remembered at all) that until the 18th and 19th centuries the richest countries in the World were China and India. Much of the British “industrial revolution” was created by the looting of those countries. And especially the destruction of Indian industries. The first giant advances of the British industrial revolution. That provided the profits invested in other parts of it,was from the “textile” industry. And just how could a country of Britain’s size and population become the World’s greatest seller of textiles,one might ask? It was by outlawing the production and exporting of Indian textiles. India was at the time a World leader in textiles. And with its huge population (even then). It was a profitable industry. The British deliberately destroyed that industry in India to build-up the one in Britain. So you saw the lunacy of Indians being forced to buy textiles imported from Birmingham,thousands of miles away. And the huge Indian textile industry and the millions of people dependent on it for a livelihood reduced to poverty and starvation. So that their Imperial masters in the UK could dominate the World trade in textiles. And use those immense profits to invest in other industries. Allowing Britain to become the industrial giant of that time. In China they used an easier method. They had nothing the Chinese needed to buy from them. Until they realized that in India there was “opium”. And so British traders and merchant companies starting producing in India opium. And shipping it to China. Causing the growth of the opium addiction in China that became so bad it helped destroy China’s industry. And is known from the infamous films we’ve probably all seen that had scenes of “opium dens” in them.When people consider all the harm done to the World’s peoples by colonialism. I would say,the worst of all was done by the British. And without even the “saving graces” of there being an intention of “saving souls”. That “at least” the Spanish and Portuguese could “claim” as an “excuse” for their savagery in the colonial World.
And Britain combined with the American Slave South, which became the main source of the raw material, cotton, needed in the Birmingham mills.
So, even though, it is true, Britain had abolished the slave trade, it continued to profit handsomely off the labor of slaves.
Katherine
Lot of information about our rulers in this interesting video (eng subs)
https://m.youtube.com/watch?list=PLqBiROD2E3JGX0fBKbKHMkwQ-RjuuUgNU&v=kuf9d3sci-w
Perhaps, were it not for the Enclosure Acts, which created a desperate pool of workers, we’d have both cars and horses?
“What I am writing is quite simply history and not really subject to disagreement among historians.”
This is wrong: it is very much disputed among historians. And those who do not dispute it are, as you appear to be, primarily ideologues for liberal capitalism.
Enclosing, both commons and open fields was one part of a multi pronged strategy which not only deprived the people of their customary property rights in land (all land including the commons and ‘waste’) but their rights to take game, for food, to take wood and turf for fuel and building materials, to take part in customary festivals and feasts and countless other rights or privileges which underwrote the poor man’s independence.
Enclosure was a massive expropriation of property by a narrow class which monopolised political power and used it for its own interests.
So far as The Saker’s use of the term Anglo Zionism is concerned it is extraordinarily apt. The first Zionists were the Puritans who stole the Commons from American, Australasian and other indigenous peoples. Like their contemporaries in South Africa-where the same justification was employed as apologia- they based their ‘right’ to plunder directly upon the Old Testament texts used by the Jewish zionists who, late in the C19th, and following the example set by imperialists, devised their own justification for racist colonising.
Now that is something that few historians disagree about!
Anonymous on Feb 04, 2016 at 1.39am UTC:
Your post makes me realise that you and many others on this thread are using the term ‘Zionist’ as code for anyone who has appropriated other people’s land; a ‘Zionist’ in you language is a land-grabber. Quite apt. My understanding of the term was traditional and literal, yours challenges that format; you have radically changed its application by broadening it.
OK, now I understand it, at it took some time. Until this new usage of the word becomes common parlance, we will continue to see other people (like myself) misunderstanding it. But eventually, it my become understood and accepted.
I can see that its new meaning will show up the Jewish Zionists in their land-grab. The drawback is that the new usage adopted by you will be open to misunderstanding and incredulity – for example, when it was asserted that ‘Zionists’ were behind the Enclosure Movement in England 1795-1805. It will also be open to misunderstanding when used in the expression ‘AngloZionism’. Strictly speaking, if ‘Zionism’ is code for ‘land-grabbing’ (or the appropriation of anything that is rightfully some else’s), then the tag ‘Anglo-‘ is superfluous.
Finally, ‘AngloZionism’ may lose its meaning-power when the term is used where the user intends it to be understood literally, as maybe regarding the U.S-Israel alliance in the Middle East. Still, a double meaning can be a useful rhetorical and psychological device, too.
The problem could be overcome by The Saker adding a short preamble inside a ‘window’ at the beginning of each of his posts, explaining how the term is used by him and us. – Gunnar
Mark Munford: There is an interesting article available in toto on the internet: “Jane Austen and the Enclosure Movement: the sense and sensibility of land reform”, by Celia Easton, first published in “Persuasions: the Jane Austen Journal”, issue No, 24 (2002), pp. 71-89. – In it, Easton gives examples where the Enclosure Movement led to the depopulation of whole villages. Apparently, the new, private owners of what had previously been common village land often preferred to stop growing things and instead switched to pastoral farming. One effect of this was to reduce the need for agricultural labour, and this, in turn, led to high levels of unemployment and of poverty (p. 75). Easton quotes Thomas More, in his book, “Utopia”, Book I, where he points out that Enclosure has led to increased levels of poverty, crime and corruption. In other words (and these are my words, not those of Easton or More), Enclosure led to population displacement, alienation, and anomie; it moved local communities from Gemeinschaft to Gesellschaft. As someone noted at the time, it enriched 1 person whilst impoverishing 20 persons. – Nothing has changed. The neoliberal power elites in Britain and all over the dollar-dominated world are imposing a similar attitude towards financially ordinary people like us and towards the poor and the mentally ill, and promotes an ideology based on self-entitlement: ‘greed is good’. It has nothing to do with ‘ethnicity’ or ‘Anglo’ or ‘Zionism’. It has everything to do raw, wanton ‘individualism’ and self-promotion by elites in key positions of political power.
Of course, you can make a word mean whatever you want it to mean. The Mad Hatter asserted his right to do this. Alice was unimpressed. So am I. It is essential that we, on this discussion thread, not be misunderstood. It is not enough to coin a new term based on one’s good intentions. That new term must be unambiguous to the person who reads it: it must ‘ring bells’; it must resonate – that is, if – if -you want to win friends and influence people who simply happen to visit this thread out of curiosity and serendipity. Behaving ‘like’ a Zionist is not the same as somehow ‘being’ a Zionist; most people will not pick up your metaphoric intent when you employ the term ‘AngloZionism’. You cannot say, on the one hand, that the top one percenters of Zionists (and Anglos) do not care about their own people or about their own country – that, in other words, these elitists and oligarchs are ‘rootless cosmopolitans’ and that most of them would laugh if confronted by a statement such as ‘we should always ask the question: ‘Is it good for the Jews?’ – and on the other hand claim that these same people are imbued with an ‘AngloZionist’ ideology. What does this mean? I submit that all it means is that they are driven by self-interest and that they network with other people (regardless of race and creed) that are similarly imbued with self-interest and who are similarly hell-bent on destroying any organised opposition in the form of a free press with independent investigative journalists, Open Society, social contract between government and people, trade unions, greens, anti-Capitalist movements, and so on. – Gunnar
Gunnar
Not to forget what the English did to the Scottish highlanders, and what Cromwell did to the Irish, the latter as practice for future foreign economic imperialist adventures.
Katherine.
Mike Munford: I didn’t know that famines stopped after the Enclosure Movement. All I can say about that: they could have built more silos, or more suitable storage space, to avoid famines. Efficiency could have been achieved, surely, without taking land away from villagers, and turning them into serfs.
English villagers, and among them landless farmers with one or a few farm animals as their only capital, suffered immensely from the Enclosure Movement. The beneficiaries of the Movement were people with money, and through their contacts in Parliament, laws was passed that made it impossible for villagers to keep their land. For example, each village had to pay for a thick hedge to be established round their village land; and around each fledging hedge, on both sides, the village had to erect a solid fence. Parliament well knew that most villages could not meet the cost. The Enclosure Movement was theft on a grand, national scale. If the result was more efficient farming, then it was achieved through a very high price – if you were a villager. There was a man called Arthur Young – you may have heard of him – who became a keen campaigner for Enclosure, and he travelled up and down the land, enthusiastically explaining its advantages. Towards the end of the Movement, Young had an inkling of the damage he had done. One day he was talking to an elderly villager about the ‘new agricultural order’. The villager turned to him and said, “All I know is that once I had a cow, and an Act of Parliament took it away from me”. – Gunnar
Mike Munford: your post has generated a lot of responses, which is great – including one from me. Here is another one.
You write, “What I am writing is quite simply history and not really subject to disagreement among historians”. I remember our history teacher in the gymnasium (senior secondary) telling us students, off the cuff, that, “You have no idea how much of what I teach you is debated among professional historians!” I was amazed. But he was right, God rest his soul. Practically everything (apart from dates, but sometimes even dates) is disputed in the academic field of history. It is not an exact science. It is more like the study of literature, and psychology – one of the ‘soft’ sciences, where methodology is somewhat different to the physical sciences. No-one disputes that the French Revolution started in 1789, but its causes and timing, the motives and intentions of the leaders, and its effects on later generations – all that is in dispute. Every year now books and learned articles are published putting forward new theories, new ideas, new conclusions, and disputing the old ones. For example, back in the 1980s and inspired by a French school of history called the Annales School, Anglo-American history journals began to publish papers that took an interdisciplinary and long-term approach – that drew on botany, zoology, climate studies, literature, philosophy. For example, Fernand Braudel studied the history of the civilizations around the Mediterranean from the point of view of the changes in the ecology, the de-forestation, pollution, demography, etc. on the rim. This heralded a new approach in the study of history and has proven useful. Others have now begun to study the role of women in history. Other, like Henri Lefebvre, wrote a ‘critique of everyday life’. Humans will always discover new ways of looking at things. Arnold Toynbee’s way was new back in the 1930s.
Someone, I think it was C. P. Snow, was interviewing China’s foreign minister Chou En-lai and asked him what he thought had been the influence of the French Revolution. He replied, “It’s too early to say”. – The French Revolution had (at that time) taken place about 160 years earlier, and yet Chou sensed that it had been such an enormous watershed in European history – and in world history – that its effects were still making themselves felt, still reverberating. Maybe the same could be said about the Enclosure Movement. Maybe the same can be said about our own time – certainly D. F. Fleming has a different ‘take’ on the Cold War and its origins. In history, the jury will always be out – no conclusion is final. One wonders what (some) historians will say about our own times, about the things we are discussing in this thread, about the justification and validity of an expression such as ‘AngloZionism’. I am sure there will be debates and disagreements about in, even in 160 years. Most may agree with The Saker, Katherine, and Ted. Who knows. – Gunnar
Mike Munford: In relation to the question put to Chou En-lai, “What do you think is the significance of the French Revolution?” and his reply, “It is too early to say” – I meant to mention an historian by the name of Alexander Kojeve (1902-1968). He entertained the idea that certain key historical events are so important, have such long-lasting ramifications, that they overshadow all other subsequent events for decades, even centuries, not just in Europe but also on the ‘periphery’ (that is, for example in Asia). He suggested that the French Revolution was such an event and that everything that has happened since – the World Wars, the Russian Revolution, and Mao’s revolution probably – are reverberations and readjustments to the French political events that ended in about 1806. Maybe Chou En-lai had Kojeve in mind when he gave his reply; I don’t know.
I don’t know whether Kojeve wrote about the Enclosure Movement in England that peaked 1795-1805. I am not an historian, but it strikes me as an act of supreme cheekiness on behalf of the British power elite to remove land from the villages’ ownership at a time when the British power elite were terrified that the French Revolution would find its way to Britain. Instead of doing what British power elites are infamous for, namely to give a small concession willingly in order to avoid having to make a much bigger concession later, in the case of the Enclosure Movement the power elite chose to impoverish their peasantry even more – rubbing their noses in their powerlessness, as it were. And the power elite got away with it. Their act could have sparked a peasant-led revolution; instead it seems to have made British peasantry meeker and more subservient. If this was the power elite’s intension and hope, then their hopes were fulfilled. One could therefore argue that one of the ‘reverberations’ of the French Revolution (as Kojeve sees it) was to make the British power elite go the other way and become even more boldly reactionary.
The observation that Stepping Razor made some time ago on this thread is acute and germane, that if you were to ask the average English person about the Enclosure Movement, he/she would probably confess complete ignorance of it – I feel this is a sign of how effective the British power elite has been in making most of us forget important aspects of our own history. They tell us one half of the story and leave out the inconvenient other half. The power elite controls the content of our school history books and they control, to a great extent, what most of us hear and watch via the mainstream ‘network’ mass media. And yet, occasionally there will be a progressive historian who makes use of ‘loopholes’ overlooked and forgotten by the power elite. D. F. Fleming, for example, in his book “The Cold War and Its Origins” (1961), makes extensive use of ‘The New York Times’ – often very small ‘incidental’ news notices; the ‘marginalised term’, as postmodernists might call them – to build up a case for American mendacity and false flag activities. I was particularly impressed by Fleming’s account of events in the late 1940s leading up to the outbreak of the Korean War in 1950. In more recent years, there is Mark Lane’s book “Plausible Denial” (1991) which suggests that the CIA was the primus motor in the assassination of President Kennedy – their own Commander-in-Chief – because Kennedy had indicated that he might dissolve the CIA due to its Bay of Pigs fiasco. So, there are always ‘loopholes’ and windows of opportunities. There is still hope. Historians are not a monolithic group; there is still diversity and dissenters among them. – Gunnar
Correction: it was Edgar Snow, not C. P. Snow, who interviewed Chou En-lai.
No, it wasn’t C. P. Snow – it was Edgar Snow. Sorry.
Stepping Razor on Feb 03, 2016 at 2.05 pm UTC:
Here is something that both you and The Saker seem to agree on:
“I don’t believe that the top 1% of Jew cares any more about Israel or the 99% of Jews than the top 1% of Anglos care about the USA or the Anglo people” – The Saker in his preamble to this blog. – From this description, personally would not refer to them as ‘Zionists’ as in the sense of conventional parlance. They are ‘Zionists’ only in the new sense (employed by some people on this blog) as meaning ‘people of any creed or colour, and at any time in history, who steal other people’s land and means of livelihood’. This describes a social class and, possibly, an international power elite.
“The AngloZionists are a class of aristocratic financiers and lawyers that have no connection to any particular country and culture and they don’t act in the best interests of the people in the countries where they happen to reside” – Stepping Razor.
Your descriptions of them are consistent with them being non-sectarian and rich but not necessarily ‘rootless cosmopolitans’. So, that is a different group, much more wedded to a nationality. But you don’t seem to regard their ‘ethnic’ or tribal self-identity as particularly germane in this context.
So far I agree with both of you. These people – 1%-ers or people further down the wealth ladder – are not primarily ‘Jews’ or ‘Zionists’ or ‘Anglos’ or ‘AngloZionists’; they are just fond of money and full of self-entitlement.
The Saker also identifies another group, the Israel lobby or ‘Zionist power configuration’ (James Petras term). Now they are not ‘rootless cosmopolitans’; they are Zionists in the sense that they are committed to Israel as a homeland smack bang in the middle of Palestine. They may or may not be rich, they may or may not be religious Jews (they could be secular Jews), but they certainly belong to the ‘tribe’ of Jews (in Shlomo Sands’ sense).
My question is this: who are we referring to as ‘AngloZionists’? Are either of you actually referring either to Anglos or Zionists when you are referring to the ‘1%-ers’? Because the 1%-ers are emotionally and culturally detached from the country in which they live and in which most of their financial affairs are conducted. They are not patriots: they don’t want to pay tax in their base country; they will find a tax haven. They are merely committed to their base country for reasons of financial transactions and their nuclear family: their children need an education somewhere.
How is the above use of the term consistent with the use of ‘Zionism’ as a term for anyone – a cabal or class or elite – who deprives another people of their land and livelihood?
To what extent the 1%-ers perceive themselves as a ‘tribe’. Should we regard them as a tribe? They no doubt network with each other, but in Ukraine, for example, they also compete with each other and are sometimes wedded to different political parties while others finance para-military groups. The terms ‘Zionists’ and ‘AngloZionists’ do not apply to them except as a description of their exploitative, land-grabbing, self-entitled nature – which is international and often multi-cultural, and is not, I would suggest, tribal specific. – Gunnar
Agreeing with Razor and Saker on this. But then: look at my – Cymreig (and Cymraeg) – name. I would agree, wouldn’t I, my ancestral Celtic nations (Cymru and Eire) having been on the receiving end of Anglo imperial criminality for generations. The enclosures were part of it, but not the whole story. It started long before then, and continues into the present.
You & others in the ‘west’ obviously benefit from the tariffs britain imposed on Bharat Varsh.
Many euro countries + america got millions in free capital that spurred their development.
You can feel white & supreme but, fact is we fought off all sorts of invaders while you lost your native cultures & daughters (honor)
In war, punishment & guilt are always collective. This is not my personal view just reality.
Hope for your safety & enlightenment.
Peace,
Hey Singh, I’m sorry for the pain and hatred you still feel about the Brits’ rape of the Indian subcontinent. But looking at the bigger picture, (Dharmic religions are known for being one of the oldest and wisest of all world religions, so I’m sure you are able to view mankind as a whole at a larger perspective) wasn’t Ashoka the Great once facilitated the slaughter of countless individuals before he had a change of heart. I’m sorry in advance if this post of mine in any way offended you or if ever you have no love for Ashoka, I must admit I am not that knowledgeable/quite ignorant of your historical/personal/cultural/religious sensitivities, that’s why I am asking for your input. Thanks
Common abrahamic technique to find false equivalences. Ashoka is one example who runs contrary to the rule. What pain & hatred for what rape? This conflict between us & abrahamics is not settled until one side is eliminated. It will be you khatwas first,
Singh … please note .. this blog is for thoughtful and polite discussion … continued belligerent comments will not be accepted … mod-hs
Yes, from the tone here you have picked up another reactionary village troll who’s discovered the ‘white mans’ internet and a keyboard. My tribe’s better than your tribe. God is ours… etc etc . Yawn. Must be a full moon in the Punjab. Change the head bandages, get a hair cut and find a job. Sikhs are a followers of an innovative experiment by a poet called Guru Nanak in the 15th century to try and merge/synthesize Hindu and Islam views in the Indian subcontinent context. These guys whinge about colonial times and then burn down Mosques so they can rebuild an earlier version of the previous religious fashions. Like the Israeli cult in Palestine planning another beast sacrificing temple on the mount. Put the microphone in Ukraine and you’ll hear the same tones. This is simply IndoZionism etc.
Full comment not approved but, just say the hair cut comment in person & remember Intel pentium & fiber optic come from us.
As for Islam, why do the Vedas, Jains & Buddhist all talk of the one true creator? Why has Islam coopted my lunar dynasty’s symbol???
Why would I want to be a clean shave anglo cucked wage slave. Even a horse knows to run from fire & towards water.
Your London is burning while I have seven rivers..
Moreover, Ashoka violated Ksytria dharam by attacking Hindu civilians. An abrahamic attacking infidels is following his ideology
Ashoka is promoted, simply because the gandhian narrative is intertwined with it.
It’s the same way british hide history of shudra/dalit resistance to invaders to stereotype them as slaves/degraded people to facilitate conversions.
Ashoka was not a good king & there’s a reason Buddhism & Jainism have practically died out in subcontinent.
I do view mankind with a larger perspective, abrahamic ideologies oppress human beings & they must be freed. Diseased branches must be pruned & abrahamics have shown they cannot behave themselves.
So they must be dealt with by sword, the human beings among them will revert to Sikhs.
@ singh-what knowledge do you of indian history when you call Ashoke the great as a not very good king?
ashok got change of heart at the battlefield of kalinga in eastern india when hesaw the futility and destruction of war which he had won and he voewd never to do voilence ever. then he followed the teachings of lord Budha and asked for non violence int he whole of india. he promoted vegetarianism but never forced his subjects to change to budhism. his priemmisnter was a brahmin and finance misnter was of different follwing. it was unlike in europewhere if king changes religion the whole subjects have to convert too.
your sikh is a new entity so it does not have any say in this history despite your attitide to other nations abrhamic or not.
My Sikh is continuation of history & I am descendent of Arjun & Karan of mahabharat. Without us, there is no history. Ashoka started forcing shramanic philosophy on populace & weakening military.
Follow Buddha, follow Jain, follow Sikhi, follow Ram, follow Krishna, follow Vedas. Still just same tribe, my tribe of Ikshvaaku.
Here’s one link for example :
http://defenceforumindia.com/forum/threads/ashoka-the-not-so-great.74031/
Ashoka had change of heart when he slaughtered civilians because he couldn’t triumph. Kalinga also has old history related to that & eventually rose as a prominent Jain kingdom.
Also for a Ksytria to refuse to do violence is against his dharam. Ashoka by definition then was not a good king.
You speak as an outsider, we speak ad the men who are his brothers & fathers. He should have abdicated the throne, pacifism is retarded as a national policy.
It is suicide & proves my point that outsiders want to feed the gandhi + ashoka narrative to keep Bharat weak. Also, he did not really give up violence. Just turned the state on its own people & persecuted the Brighus. Another thing against Ksytria dharam
If you don’t understand the relation between all ideologies of Hind, please don’t make generalized statements. For you, this is some foreign religion that you adapt to your culture. For us, it is our native culture.
Buddha, Mahavir, Gurus, Devas all are holy to us but we look at things in context. The state of the world today does not call for non violence. The west funds a nuclear jihadist state next to us.
Should we pray to Lord Buddha to make them go away? Remember that the Dharam of Karam is higher than the Dharam of Vedas.
Actions are higher than prayer/meditation & study.
Ashoka caused an economic collapse which allowed foreigners to cross the khyber & led to a state of war since.
We haven’t had peace since,
Is that a definition of a good king?
Look to the results of rule, not whether it pleases your heart.
After 1699 founding of Khalsa, 3 simultaneous rebellions were launched in Sapta Sindhu, Rajputana & Maharashtra.
This saved dharam, on this there is consensus.
Ask any army man, on these matters we have Final say. We are the future of this civilization as Budh & Jain & afterwards Manu were.
ਵਾਹਿਗੁਰੂਜੀਕਾਖਾਲਸਾ।।ਵਾਹਿਗੁਰੂਜੀਕੀਫਤਹਿ।।
Ok Singh and Anon – your conversations have gone on now for many posts and is completely off topic. Please close it down now. Thanks.
@ Singh -so in delusion you think that sapvation of India lies in voilence because of recetly born sect called khalsa which in 300 years history has given those Sikhs who betrayed the Indian marathas in the 3rd battle of panipat, who sided with British to kill the Indians in sepoy mutiny of 1857 for which the british awatdedthem morepovi
mentioned Sikhs in far East Punjab sided with brits. Same ones helped in 1857 & maratha.
Same helped Duryodhan in Mahabharat, they are cursed by Krishna Ji. Nobody finds salvation in the zombie carpenter jew, despite delusions.
Ksytria dharam is violence & funny you use word salvation. Take it you don’t like us killing missionaries? :)
If mods will pass on the email I use for this comment or you share your contact info will talk to you more on there.
Thanks,
I don’t think Abrahamic religions can be fully eliminated from the face of the earth, nor is any old religion(shamanism, animism, dharmic, zoroastrianism, paganism, etc) for that matter, cults are a different issue altogether just like fads. These are all different aspects of truth seen through different lenses be they geographical/cultural/spiritual/personal or simply contextual. Everything talking about different phenomena or Truth or God. What will be will be brother. Each individual’s journey towards ultimate enlightenment is the journey of the collective humankind’s/universe’s journey.
Many religions have died, too many to name. Especially when looking at the geopolitical level, there is no euro pagan country.
Democracy is a false argument because the values socially enforced in those countries, continue a christianity without jesus type of arrangement.
It’s not a question of what we think but of will.
Ksytrias belligerent & will remain so. reason why Bharat stands while Rome, Persia, Egypt, etc. are dust.
Discussion must be emotionally neutral to be fruitful. He’s sad, aggression opposite of weakness.
Did not personally attack, it’s normal style of debate in other countries.
Absolutely excellent comment & summary Stepping Razor…it is, primarily, a Class War.
“that have
tono connection”Yes, I think the class war is an apt framework. And crawlers like the war criminal Tony Blair demonstrate just what it takes to sell your soul and get up-a-class and into the ‘club’ class these days … and thus it always was, it seems. No-soul beings without capacity for remorse or conscience are beyond normal governance systems — they refer to themselves these as as “exceptionals”. Basically they are just criminals and out-laws eating with all the silver stolen from others through any and every method except an honest days work.
I have maintained it as “class war” for 2 or 3 years now on thesaker. I used to debate such abhorences as “benign trillionaires” as defined by Kat Kan (rest her sould) but an “honest days work” is where we really get to the nitty gritty (a multipolar world is, ultimately, nothing worth striving for).
For example, if you consider that Bill Gates has always done an honest days work and is due the wealth that he has accumulated then we are no further on.
If you think that “your” little Johny is due the inheritance that all your honest days work amounted to then we are no further on.
The only solution is to break the system of wealth accumulation.
Will we ever agree on a design that?
I hope so – but doubt it.
@ Stepping Razor on February 03, 2016 · at 2:05 pm UTC
Stepping Razor
How did you make the leap from “Anglo” as a term for the English aristocracy of the 1600s to the 1800s to “Anglo-Zionist” to refer to the same class? And when did the aristocracy become specifically and solely financiers and lawyers rather than landowners and later industrialists as well (or predominantly)? And when did this English aristocracy become rootless cosmopolitans (to coin a phrase)?
What is absolutely correct, and not only absolutely, but totally, about any of this?
This was a response to the comment of Stepping Razor’s made at five past two. How did it end up down here? What did I do wrong?
Ewan, you haven’t done anything wrong. Other people have answered before you so your response falls down the comments page. I have added a line to your commnet so it is clear you are responding to Stepping Razor’s.
I meant to say, Thanks. Your job must require the patience of a saint!
Hi Ewan, I am not sure that I can answer all your questions, perhaps the narrative that I wrote was simplistic. I was trying to be brief in my reply to Saker, but also to be honest about my views in basically describing what we would call The Powers That Be.
I imagine there is a fairly small circle of families and family interest that hold considerable power and influence over the land and its people. I think it is true today as it was 400 years ago. Some of the descendants of powerful people generations ago hold a lot of power today. I imagine too that some families lose influence over time or die off and new ones gain influence. I am not sure exactly because they aren’t very public about their activities and actions. Those who have become powerful in England haven’t really acted in the best interests of the English people or for the good of the state, English culture, the nation etc. ever. Wars all through its history, Crimean War, Boer War, Crimean War, First World War, Second World War. Ultimately their actions have been in their own best interest not in the interest of the people or even the state/nation.
I think it is a lack of faith that causes men to do this and in the absence of any real spiritual grounding they became rational industrialists, later Eugenicists which evolved into the Zionist movement. They think of themselves as “progressives” so while not all might think of themselves as Zionist, or not all might even be Anglos, I am describing the prevalent ideology that drives or is their religion at the heart of who they are. This is why I think of them as root-less, nation-less people even if they have a manor home kept for generations in a particular country. They will sell out those people and that industry or their investments without second thought if they could gain more power or wealth to do so.
I am not sure if that answers your question, its not an exact science I admit and am open to different interpretations. But I think the connection between Zionism and Eugenicists is important, but I am not an expert. Their motivations and intentions just “feel” very similar to me.
I think that English people may have gained a lot materially from the industrial revolution and the British Empire but I think that its people have also paid a horrible price spiritually and psychologically.
I was surprised to see the amount of responses there were to my post I have enjoyed reading them all.
Stepping Razor
Thanks for trying to answer my questions.
Your second paragraph, I imagine, more or less describes what has happened in most societies, not just Britain in the last few centuries – the “national interest” reflects the interests of the currently most powerful coalition of interest groups or classes.
Your third leaves me bemused and wondering what the Saker thought so “absolutely and totally correct”.
The aristocracy you were talking about previously became industrialists? Rather, surely, industrialists used their money to become ersatz aristocrats (by marriage as often as not). And who is it you think then became eugenicists? The industrialists? And what did these industrialist eugenicists have to do with Zionists? I know there were many protestants in Britain who were willing allies of the Zionists (based on their reading of the Bible). But they were nonetheless British, not in any way “rootless”. And they were far from all being industrialists. And fewer still probably had any thoughts about eugenicism (other than I suspect if prompted they would agree that it was generally thought a good thing – given the then current state of ignorance about genetics).
As I say, I’m not clear why you and the Saker think this at all germane.
Ewan in his response to Stepping Razor:
You ask who were the eugenicists? Apart from the aristocrats and the nouveau riche industrialists, I’d suggest (tongue in cheek) the lower middle class or petit bourgeoisie who represent the ‘aspirational classes’ (Tony Blair), whose lives centre around class identity and class consciousness, and who strive very hard to be accepted by the secure and solid middle class (whose preoccupation is to make money and to be seen to make money: regular foreign excursions to exotic places, for example). This insecure – and almost forgotten – lower middle want a world in their image which they sincerely believe is the image of the upper middle: an hermetically sealed world of a genetically pure and successful class, keen on (that is, private; grammar school lacks ‘class’; grammar school is neither middle nor working class, neither fowl nor fish) education and keen that their children will be able to display their wealth (conspicuous consumption – Thorstein Veblen). Members of this petit bourgeoisie don’t realise that class can’t be instantly bought with money or ‘bling’ but that (according to the solid- and upper middle classes) real classy class takes a few generations to percolate upward. – Oh well, I’m glad I have retired and no longer have to struggle but can live in peace in my shabby-chic home… – Gunnar
Ewan: I was asking the same question as yours (see my reply to ‘Anonymous’). As far as I can gather, it turns out that many people on this thread use the term ‘Zionist’ not necessarily to mean Jewish Zionist (which is its traditional and conventional meaning), but as code for anyone who appropriates land that belongs to other people – especially if that appropriation is based on racism and is justified by religious texts (however, in the case of the British power elite’s land grab during the Enclosure movement, I’m not sure that racism and/or religious texts were involved).
So, yes, on this thread the term ‘Zionist’ has a much broader meaning and is applicable to non-Jews. What ‘Zionist’ means in the context of ‘AngloZionist’, I’m still trying to work out. I think ‘Zionist’ can then retain its traditional meaning, or it can mean anyone who behaves like a Jewish Zionist in Israel against Palestine. So, here ‘Zionist’ has a double meaning, which has its drawbacks but has advantages, too.
I hope this clarifies the issue for you. I’m still trying to come to terms with my newly acquired insight. I hope I’ve got it right. – Gunnar
@Stepping Razor on February 03, 2016 · at 2:05 pm UTC
Thank you for describing the methods of these parasites. Same story has happened with the former communist countries around the world. Absolutely same picture, even worse ,because hey have confiscated the private lands, factories everything after the communist coups after the WWII.
And this multicultural BS is icing on the cake for the AZ parasite’s.
With respect, Saker, it is profoundly unhistorical to assimilate the American Empire with the British Empire. It would be hard to find two empires which were more different. The British Empire had its faults, but it was based, on the whole, on a desire to benefit the many peoples in it. I fully expect this to be challenged by an Irishman; but an honest Indian or African historian will not challenge it. The myth that our empire was based on ruthless conquest and slavery is simply a myth. Above all, Britain’s imperial record was distinguished by the fact that Britain alone, of all countries, prohibited slavery in its colonies and devoted all the energy of its Navy to repressing the slave trade and piracy. That is how we used our great world power, when we had it. It is not how the USA uses its world power now.
I
but it was based, on the whole, on a desire to benefit the many peoples in it (…) an honest Indian or African historian will not challenge it.
You gotta be kidding, seriously?!
words fail me here…
^ this. Marxism may be a retarded ideology along with xtianity but, the danavas of rus have a role in anti colonialism that does honor to their blood.
England houses all the anti nationals of the world. They have India especially in their sites lol, while they send their daughters to prostitute for gulf shieks.
O well, their demographics suicide is not far. :D
“You gotta be kidding, seriously?
words fail me here…”
Nope.
He’s not kidding at all, that’s what they teach brits in schools; to believe their plunderous empire was largely benevolent bringing civilized-ways to savages in strange barbaric lands… (It’s similar to what they teach kids in the Americas about Columbus, but worse, actually)
I’ve said they “teach that to brits in schools,” well… maybe not anymore since kids in brit schools nowadays are from anywhere but England, so chances are they’ve toned down the ‘benevolent empire civilizing barbarians’ rhetoric on the curriculum.
A lot of older people still hold these preposterous views, though [again: baby-boomers!] and depressingly enough, some “respected” scholars too.
BTW; same thing has been happening now, right under our noses. Just wait to see what primary schoolers and high schoolers have been taught about 9/11 and the Iraq war by our glorious leaders and their Teaching-Corps lapdogs…
-TL2Q
Last but not least: NATO is a philanthropic society committed to just wars. As is usually the case, the practices and especially the very business of benign protection are accompanied by a modest degree of coercion for the Greater Good of Everybody. The Anglo-Zionists are the embodiment of love and compassion.
Wow,I am in total agreement with you Saker. Words fail me too (and that’s a hard task). A shocking misreading of history,at the very least.
Really? 600 million starved in India, while you offered conversion to christianity (for a bag of rice) & created /continue to support the largest terrorist state Pakistan?
https://vajrin.wordpress.com/2015/05/11/lessons-for-hindus-learning-from-a-19th-century-anglo-saxon-study-of-islam-part-1/
England deserves the removed & Bengali removed dislike. It’s a twist of irony, Racist words not allowed. Amended last two words as also inappropriate. Mod TR.
An honest Indian historian would point to India being the largest economy in 1857 (30%world GDP) & a mere 2% in 47.
Does this sound beneficial?
http://socialdemocracy21stcentury.blogspot.com.au/2010/06/early-british-industrial-revolution-and.html?m=1
Shaheed Udham Singh who killed your general in London to avenge the Jallianwala Baag massacre in Amritsar said this :
Machine guns on the streets of India mow down thousands of poor women and children wherever your so-called flag of democracy and Christianity flies.
I don’t have time to post paragraphs, check out @crimesofbrits for one.
The post 1857 Independence movement involved dozens of rebellions, hundreds of battles & thousands of skirmishes.
Guess us savage Hindhs/Sikhs couldn’t understand your ‘advanced’ ways & are now outdoing you in your own countries. xD
Hope your nuclear shelters are adequate, my anglo friend.
CrimesofBritain.com
All you tried to do is subvert & destroy our Hindu civilization in order of facilitate conversion to christianity & islam (especially latter)
Too bad huh? You’ll be destroyed long before we feel anything. We freed Punjab of 40% muslims in a month; doubt you’ll get back London in even a year.
Seems you’re responsible for black-american disfunction too:D http://www.unz.com/article/towards-a-theory-of-everyone/
http://defenceforumindia.com/forum/threads/british-support-for-pakistan-partition-of-india.74768/
The Sikhs as defenders of India is a great fallacy. True, they fought against the muslims but they were allies of the British more often than not. It is they who helped the British quell the 1857 rebellion for freedom.
The fight for Khalisthan ( homeland for Sikhs ) is still simmering in some parts of the world. Indira Ghandhi was assassinated by Sikh bodyguards and 3000 Sikhs were murdered in Delhi as a reprisal.
Please don’t feed this troll. India is a wonderful country but there are many such vitriolic people who can view this world with fractured glasses. They will never see the bigger picture.
Lets stick to the Sakers Anglo/zionist topic.
@Singh,
Wow, you have very successfully highjacked and derailed this post. First of all and how did you count the 600mln? Did anyone or does anyone actually know the real count of total India’s population? I am convinced that even today it’s just a guess.
All this accumulated hatred against Christians, … there is nothing wrong with Christianity. Colonial wars had/have nothing to do with that religion. I have a surprise for you: It’s the 1%’ers. Point your hatred in that direction.
Don’t wanna spam but, one more.
British troops in Helmand Prov Afghanistan
Area becomes world’s largest heroin source
Heroin flows into E Punjab home of their traditional enemies the Sikhs of Central Punjab (far East ones helped them in 1849)
Coincidence? No.
Civilized? Yes. After all Turban + Beard & Mustache is unfashionable.
Removed profanity and inappropriate sentence… please review moderation policy … next time comment will not be published … mod-hs
British troops are too coward to fight on their own. the british bribed Taliban in Helmand not to attack british and go on making profit from opium manufacture.
In December of 2007, this Britain-run drug-money-laundering and terrorist-networking operation was about to be exposed when Afghan President Hamid Karzai learned that two British MI6 agents were working under the cover of the United Nations and the European Union behind his back, to finance and negotiate with the Taliban. He expelled them from Afghanistan.
These MI6 agents were entrusted by London with the task of using Britain’s 7,700 troops in the opium-infested, Pushtun-dominated, southern province of Helmand to train 2,000 Afghan militants, ostensibly to “infiltrate” the enemy and “seek intelligence” about the lethal arms of the real Taliban. Karzai rightly saw it as Britain’s efforts to develop a lethal group within Afghanistan, a new crop of terrorists.”
British Queen Victoria was the biggest drug trafficker. Even Queen Victoria used Opium ( Laudanum ), and records exist in the Royal Apothecary at Balmoral, as to how many times Opium was passed on to the royal palace.
THE ”anglo west” originated the tactics copied by the nazis.
realize that the Nazis studied and admired anglo American tactics – and admired anglo american racial experiments…the system of plantations and slavery, as concentration camps, the ideas and methods of building rows and rows of dormitory style long shacks for slaves…the american methods of experimenting on colored people with biological pathogens
Please stop using caps – I will only amend on this occasion. It is screaming and breaks the Saker site rules. There are other formatting choices you could use to emphasise words – like bold, italic etc.Mod TR
Anon: you are absolutely right. In fact we may have read the same book: “An Intimate War” (2014), by Mike Martin. Captain Martin had the advantage of speaking the Pashtun language, and he also had the advantage of a flexible and lugubrious mind. In his book he describes how the British officer class in Afghanistan were, time and time again, hoodwinked by tribal leaders into thinking that certain members of the tribe next door were ‘Taliban’ when in fact all they were, it turned out, were the tribal adversary of the tribe that the British officers were speaking to. As Martin tells it, the British officer class went into Helmand with the preconceived idea that their main enemy was a nebulous enemy, ‘the Taliban’ – which they believed were endemic in Helmand – rather than the Taliban that were infiltrating across the border from Pakistan in relatively small numbers. So, they fell for the tribal leaders’ stories that the tribe next door were, or harboured, Taliban fighters. And because of this bias, the people who acted as interpreters for the British officer class In Helmand, could see that if they were to challenge their employer’s perception, they risked getting sacked; so they kept quiet. When Captain Martin tried to explain to members of the British officer class what was actually going on, he was not believed, or he was believed by ignored. It beggars belief.
And then, when he wants to publish his book, the cowards – the British officer class – slam the Official Secrets Act on it. Captain Martin had to resign for the Army in order to publish his book.
The most disturbing part of the book, from my point of view, is the lack of coordination between the interrogators at Guantanamo Bay ‘prison facility’ (torture facility) and the officers and intelligence personnel on the ground in Helmand province. Time and time again, the interrogators at Guantanamo were wrongly informed as to who was related to whom, and who worked for who, among tribal members in Helmand. It appears, although I don’t think Captain Martin explicitly says so, that some prisoners at Gitmo were waterboarded because they were telling the truth about the family- and social relationships between people back home In Helmand, but because the interrogators had faulty information, they kept using torture in order the break their prisoner and make them tell them the ‘truth’. Captain Martin relates one episode where one member of the ‘intelligence’ board at Guantanamo did not know where Helmand Province was and had be shown a map of Afghanistan.
The other disturbing aspect of this story is, of course, that over 400 British servicemen were killed in Afghanistan, many of them in Helmand. And many American service men died there, also. And many civilians. Most of it in vain, I’d say, given the military situation in Afghanistan these days.
When will the British officer class, and their American colleagues, learn to listen to people who know the language and understand the local culture? When will the British officer class become humble (and wise) and say, “This is something we don’t know much about; let us find out from experts – real experts”. And when will the British officer class stop duplicating the ignorance of their ‘ugly American’ colleagues and instead ensure that their own intelligence and their own grasp of the local milieu is superior to that of the American’s? When will the British officer class begin to show a bit of intellectual and political independence?
I may sound arrogant about this. All I can say is, “Arrogance is contagious”. – Gunnar
re: Munford: You are just plain historically wrong on the slave trade. The Brits did not abolish it until it was on its way out in 1824 but for the previous 2 -3 centuries they made a lucrative profit selling slaves for the free labor that built the American colony until due to the industrialization of New England and the opening of the West, it was on its way out in the New World also. ( There was an entrenched class in the South which had a land based, aristocratic “way of life” which they felt they had to die for in defense of slavery-thus the Civil War).
So, Mike, you think that “The British Empire had its faults, but it was based, on the whole, on a desire to benefit the many peoples in it”? Well, I beg to differ:
– The Indian Holocaust – http://yourstory.com/2014/08/bengal-famine-genocide/
– The Canadian Holocaust – http://www.whale.to/a/annett.html
– The Kenyan Genocide – http://www.amazon.com/Imperial-Reckoning-Untold-Story-Britains/dp/0805080015 (or simply g00gle “Mau Mau uprising”)
What do you think now, Mike…?
__________________________________________________________
– This is the difference between the power of our Creator and anything else — particularly evil: That you can go into a pitch black room, full of evil, full of darkness, and light a little candle, and instantly that darkness flees. But you can’t do the opposite. You can’t go into a well-lit room full of truth and wisdom and righteousness and joy and health and harmony with the Universal power — You can’t take any amount of Darkness and go into that well-lit room and have any effect whatsoever… – Dr. Len Horowitz
@TheSaker: Keep on shining!
This comment is unacceptable. It is 100% false. I am shocked this can be here at this website.But I am swallowing my disdain for you. and banned my disgust instead advising you to read ” the Great hedge” or , “Churchill’s secret wars” I am waiting for England to disappear under the sea..
my comment was to Mike Munford. Why was it not posted there?
These comments are in the thread started by Mike M .. scroll up on comments … mod-hs
bernie: Well… Mike Munford may be misinformed but he has every right to say what he thinks, and we have every right to put our views forward to help him change his mind. It’s good that he is on this thread so that we can debate the issues with him. It’s out in the open. – Gunnar
The same commentary use to make Spanish nationalists about their Empire: “Our Empire was a crator one, we did not enslave the Indian population; the British did!”. The same use to mek the French nationalists: “Our EMpire was progressive, other were reactionary!”.
And the same make the USA current imperialist: “Our Empire brings democracy worldwide, other are bad!”.
There is no “good Empire”.
You will find people claiming the caliphate to be good as well. It’s part of abrahamic ideology where you gain Moral high ground through subversion (silencing honest debate) & inventing fake victim stories.
Examples : Islamic invasions into Afghanistan were to free women (serious)
Rome fed christians to lions
Many more examples but, in interest of not monopolizing discussion will let others respond for a while. :P
Rubbish, Mike. Pure denial of evil. Just like we Americans must now look at ourselves “as ithers see us” (Bobby Burns) the English must do the same, because you pre-date us.
In order to begin to understand the problem we must begin to shed our loyalties to race, geography, etc and identify with Truth and Good and humanity in a broader sense, and recognize what the enemy within is. What is evil? Our land? Our race? Or some mentality, some disease that has infected us (the host) and is using it, our “body”, for its evil purposes, in the all too recognizable form of Empire?
I submit that that disease is Oligarchism and what infected the British Isles and the Netherlands was Venetian oligarchism, in particular and the Venetian Party (in England) , in the person of Paolo Sarpi, its founder and instigator and evil “philosopher”. This is the infection that was passed to North America, as well. But you were first, because after the Age of Transoceanic Explorations, Venice, in the Adriatic was no longer viable. The Empire could no longer be Mediterranean-centered. So they moved its center to the Atlantic.
https://youtu.be/UKalqi0O4fM
“on a desire to benefit the many peoples in it”
Man, you are just crazy. This is the biggest nonsense I’ve ever heard. The ONLY people who benefit were English. Others were enslaved or killed.
Mr. Mumford you really need to look beyond the official history Britain writes for itself!
Is it satire?
No even pm David Cameron says this stuff behind multicultural veil this is what non anglo youth in 5 eyes grow up with.
Standard response by anglos
Leave
Too bad
Haha
Etc
Great thing about this site is the anglo factor called out into open.
—
Anglo multiculturalism :
OK for anglo to marry girls from your country not vice versa
OK for anglo to be a proud of his culture
You should deny yours exists except the sanitized fifth column version & even then..
Every non anglo country is savage hellhole
Anglo countries don’t have problems
Any problems are due to non anglos
Even among the ‘white’ population
French are OK as long as French girls loose
Germans are nazis but their cars are cool
Slavs & latins are scum especially slavs
Especially Serbian & Russian
Polish treated bad but try hard anyway
Observations based on seeing
Canada UK USA & general knowledge/friends in Australia New Zealand
Many countries like Norway France also fund terrorism but, the people are 1million times better
It’s like Isis Vs nicest people you can imagine
Go to Canada drive from downtown Toronto to Montreal
Your suicidal feelings of hopelessness will subside.
@Mike Munford on February 03, 2016 · at 2:17 pm UTC
Anglo empire who is still today looking down for the rest of the world as an “useless eaters and sub-humans” got rich by looting through all of their colonies around the world. Non of the nations around the world has looted as much as British Empire. It was historically proven and written by many prestigious scholars around the world including the honest British scholars.
Dear Mike Munford
“The British Empire had its faults, but it was based, on the whole, on a desire to benefit the many peoples in it.”
Let’s see … the British Empires desire to ‘benefit’ the indigenous people who lived in the southern continent …. oh yes … didn’t the British carry out conquest, slavery and genocide of the aboriginal people. Oh and starting in 1788 didn’t they transport criminals and rif raff here to settle the land where ‘nobody’ lived and extend the British Empire.
We just celebrated ‘Australia Day’ on 26 January to celebrate this event… which the aboriginal people call ‘invasion day’.
@bubushka in Oz. – You raise an interesting question: when does a British settler turn into an Australian inhabitant in the 19th century. It could be argued that the minute a migrant (from any nation) sets foot on Australian soil, he/she is an Australian in the sense that the person becomes responsible for his/her own actions as an autonomous agent. Or, we could water this argument down a little and say that there is a shared responsibility between the new arrival and the Colonial Office in London.
I have read of one occasion when Britain intervened in what might be called Australia’s internal affairs: its war on Aboriginal peoples. An Aboriginal by the name of Windradyne, military leader of the Wiradjuri people in central-west New South Wales, led a guerrilla war against white settlers around 1822. The Governor of NSW, Lord Brisbane, declared a state of emergency and launched a full-scale war against the Wiradjuri people (which ended in 1824, I think). When the Colonial Secretary in London, Lord Bathurst, heard about this, he intervened and criticised Governor Brisbane for having declared a state of emergency. Lord Brisbane was subsequently sent back to England, but I’m not sure whether his military campaign against the local Aboriginal people was the reason (or the sole reason) for him being recalled.
I know this is only one example, and you could argue that there should have been many more examples of intervention from the Colonial Office in London – Australia was, after all, a British colony. It may be that not many incidents of abuse of power were formally reported to London. I don’t know. But this incident suggests that someone like Lord Bathurst took complaints seriously. And so he should, and so should other Colonial Secretaries have done in the 19th and early 20th centuries. No doubt about that.
I am arguing, nevertheless, that people resident in Australia at that time, as colonists, share responsibility for what was happening there. Very much so. The Colonial Office was far away, and terrible massacres were carried out by bands of settlers often led by the local police force. The fact that this state of affairs continued for decades, right up to the early 1930s, cannot be laid entirely at the door of the British government in London. Not entirely. On the one hand, there should have been monitors from the Colonial Office on the ground, all over Australia. On the other hand, there should have been more people, with the right contacts, writing to the Colonial Secretary, describing the gross abuses of power.
You obviously sympathise with the Aboriginal peoples; and you (and they) are absolutely right: Australia Day was really Invasion Day. – Gunnar
Hee hee, so ridiculous.
Brits are actually the worst. Just use an example of Malaysia/Malaya:
Malaya was already a British colony long before WWII. when the Japanese started their invasion and march from Thailand down to Malaya, British troops (along with Aussies) simply left, run away.
Japanese took the whole of Malaya peninsula + Singapore in like 2 days.
What happens after that during Japanese occupation? – local rebels, including mostly Chinese Communists keep fighting a guerilla war with the Japanese for several years.
Then of course, in 1945 Japan surrendered. So what happened next?
The Brits came back, started arresting the rebels, calling them “terrorists”,
rounded up thousands of Chinese people,
move them from their homes and put them in so called “new villages”,
setup “Special Branch” police, implemented the origins of the “internal security act” where people can be locked up without trial forever. Via the “Special Branch”, pioneered the torture
techniques that are still used to day in some places, such as:
put you in “cold room”,
make never ending noise so you cannot sleep, and so on
yes, British were the “good” empire people, my foot.
@Mike,
but it was based, on the whole, on a desire to benefit the many peoples in it (…) an honest Indian or African historian will not challenge it.
You must be joking…
I guess you do not know that an extension of the enclosures was the way the African colonies were set up, to finally destroy the remnants of societies on which three centuries of the slave trade had skimmed dry and absorb the resources.
As an example, look at post communist Ukraine after only 35 years and imagine how it would be if it were subjected to five centuries of continuous pillaging and you may start understanding some of the root causes of the current African quagmire…
Thanks
Hey, shall I run that past what’s left of the indigenous populations of Australia?
Ok, they may have been in the stone age before the British arrived (largely to escape the horrors of the industrial factories in the old country) but that is no excuse for an apartheid system that only formally recognized them as human beings with natural rights in 1966! And I doubt they would be any better off under French or other European control. No excuse and by today’s standards (except Israel in Palestine) unacceptable.
Mike Munford: Well, there is some truth in what you say. In India, for example, the British put an end, by and large, to the wars between the various provinces; there was a pax britanica in that sense. On the other hand, in the decades leading up to Independence, Britain’s negotiations with the leaders-to-be of Pakistan led a blood bath during the period of Partition. There was a lack of foresight, or a lack of caring, on the part of successive British government. Lives saved during the Raj was ‘negated’ by the lives lost during the Partition panic.
You might argue (and perhaps would argue) that Britain introduced Western science, technological knowhow, and Western literature, poetry, and philosophy to India during the Raj. I would agree with you that that was good. They also introduced the ideas of Western democracy to India. The problem was that Indians were not permitted to apply their newly acquired ideas of democracy to their own country. Britain had a workable democracy and were teaching Indians all about it, but would not permit Indians to argue that this is what we want for India. Such ideas were censored. That was one of the internal contradictions about the British Empire.
Someone else on this thread has already pointed out that when the British first arrived in India, India was a leading, if not the leading, centre of commerce in Asia, and was therefore a wealthy country. By the time of Independence, India was reduced to utter poverty, one of the poorest countries in the world. I lived there in 1952 (for seven months, when I was nine years old) and can testify that poverty in and around Chennai (Madras) was endemic. Much of that poverty is attributed to the way the Empire exploited Indian resources. It has been argued that famines are less likely to occur in countries that have a democratic form of government. India under the Raj suffered repeated famines and Amartya Sen, the economist, argues that this was, to a large extent, because India was a colony, a ‘benign’ dictatorship.
As for the American Empire, comparisons are difficult. You obviously are not impressed with the way U.S. regimes run its Empire. Certainly, their neoliberal-type of Capitalism kills – it kills as many people as the gulags used to kill Russians under Stalin. Some time ago, ‘The Guardian’ newspaper published some statistics (the report is reproduced on the Internet) concerning the number of people who die one to four weeks after having been told that have failed in their appeal for unemployment benefits or invalid pension (I’m not sure what the current terminology is for these). The figures are unbelievable. The Department of Work and Pensions refuse to break down the statistics into ’causes of death’, but I presume that a fair proportion of the deaths are due to suicide. In a way the figures are not all that surprising, because if you fail in your application, your rental allowance (if you have one) is withdrawn also, and (if you don’t have a supportive family) you are on the street – where you may die from hunger, exposure, disease, or suicide. Mentally ill people are particularly vulnerable because many of these need medication, and if they are made homeless, they are unlikely to receive their medication; this means that they will become more depressed or more disturbed and death by suicide or ‘misadventure’ becomes more likely. The British government is engaged in a cleansing of ‘undesirable people’, and their policy is based on neoliberalism.
You, Mike, could argue that Britain in her days of Empire did not advocate or enforce such inhumane anti-welfare policies. Certainly you might argue that, whereas Britain’s welfare system improved during the 20th century (in Britain), America’s welfare system has deteriorated – and that, via austerity policies, they are imposing murderous welfare cuts on the most vulnerable people in their own society and in societies all over that part of the world where the U.S. dollar has significant influence. I think you would have a point.
As for an evaluation of which system was the worse – the British or the American Empire – well, that’s a vexed question and one I cannot answer. Maybe that, in itself, tells us how bad both empires were/are and that, in this case, comparisons are odious. – Gunnar
Mike Munford. – In today’s ‘The Observer’ newspaper, Sunday 14 February 2016, pp. 1 and 14, there is an article on a Report that was overseen by Paul Farmer and is officially to be published by the Cameron-government tomorrow, called “A Five Year Forward View for Mental Health”. In it, it states – quoting from ‘The Observer’, p. 14:
“Suicide in England is now rising “following many years of decline” [of mental health services], with 4,477 people killing themselves in an average year”;
“A quarter of people with severe mental health problems need more support than is currently on offer and many are at serious risk of self-neglect”;
“Despite the known impact of untreated postnatal health problems, less that 15% of areas provide effective services for women and 40% provide no services at all. One in five women develop a mental health problem during the perinatal period”;
“The average maximum wait for a community mental health team appointment is 30 weeks and mental health wards are far busier than guidelines allow”.
This, combined with an earlier report [reported by ‘The Guardian’ newspaper, 27 August 2015, under the heading, “Thousands have died after being found fit for work, DWP figures shows”, by Patrick Butler] on the number of unemployed people who die two to four weeks after having been told they are not (or are no longer) eligible for unemployment benefits or invalid pension, suggests that the British government is engaged in something more than simple ‘benign neglect’. The government knows full well the extent of misery and death that their austerity program is inflicting; they feign ignorance. They are not ignorant, though – they are spin doctors engaged in the social and genetic cleansing of ‘undesirable’ people, people who are ‘unproductive’ and therefore undeserving. The British government’s attitude is that of Stalin towards his dissenters: ‘We can do without them: let them rot; let them die’.
The government’s attitude is in line with neoliberalism: no-one is worth any more than what they are able to produce; if they are not productive, they are worthless. This attitude is endemic of the power elites in the Western world, and in the dollar-dominated part of the world. And what they create is a vale of tears.
It’s good that ‘The Guardian’ and ‘The Observer’ publish these reports and statistics. However, these newspapers should publish them on their front pages every day in order to embarrass the government into humane action to protect the most vulnerable in our society – every day. The government should not be allowed to forget that we know, that we can see through their spin, covers-up, and evasion. Let no-one be in any doubt that the government knows what they are doing. They know alright.
So, we are back to the vexed question, which Empire is/was the worse: the British or the American. I am tempted to say that it no longer matters. The two government systems have morphed into one in a common embrace of neoliberalism. Maybe we will have to leave it historians of the future to make an evaluation.
I see another headline in today’s ‘The Observer’, 14 February: “Top author joins ‘mass trespass’ [demonstration] over privatising public spaces”, by Mark Townsend, p. 6. (The top author is Will Self). I am reminded of David Harvey’s interesting book, “Spaces of Capital: Towards a Critical Geography” (2001), in which he asserts that it is we, the local people, who own urban space, not corporations or the City of London. It is us!
Is this another land-grab by the AngloZionists? Who knows. Perhaps we could ask for transcripts of the government’s mass surveillance records to find out who said what to whom within the City of London in the lead-up to this new land appropriation. Maybe the government would kindly help us identify the relevant voices and e-mails. A bit of Open Government wouldn’t go astray. It would be much appreciated. – Gunnar
Mike Munford: Just a quick post to refer back to something I said in my previous post to you: “The [British] government’s attitude is in line with neoliberalism: no-one is worth any more than what they are able to produce; if they are not productive, they are worthless”.
This statement is based on a book I’m reading at the moment: “The New Way of the World: On Neoliberal Society”, by Pierre Dardot and Christian Laval. It is a textbook on the philosophy and practice of Neoliberalism and its radical departure from Classical Liberalism.
The next step, if course, is to address the question posed on this thread: in what way are we justified in attributing this new form of ‘land-grab’ – this impoverishment of the already poor – to ‘AngloZionism’. Many posts here seems to use the term as code for any power elite – regardless of race/tribe or sectarian identity, and regardless of historical epoch. They use ‘AngloZionism’ and ‘Zionism’ as exemplars, not just examples, but as ‘blueprints’ of the deprivation of one set of people by another set of people. So, ‘privatisation’ would be regarded as a form of Zionism. And some posts project this sort of attitude and behaviour back to the Venetians and their establishing the first proper banking system in England and inveigling themselves into the Royal Court.
To me this is a new and ‘heretical’ use of the term ‘AngloZionism’. The more I think about it, the more it grown on me – like a weed. I can see how the term can – may – be used this way. My resistance to is is, you could say, ‘old-fashioned’: I see the people who rule us as a ‘class’ (some born into it, others having aspired to it), and as a class they are hell-bent on depriving ordinary people like you and me of our rights under the old notion of a ‘social contract’ between us and our government. They claim to favour ‘small government’; in fact they want (their kind of) government to rule supreme. To achieve this end, this power elite must deprive us of job security and of our sense of financial and emotional independence. They must make us feel insecure. Hence their mass surveillance programme, which is a modern form of Bentham’s pan-opticon.
So, I see the power elite as a class, primarily. The fact that there are many Jews (generically) and Zionists (specifically), and Israel-lobbyists, among the membership of this elite group (with fuzzy boundaries, by the way), does not convince me that the term ‘AngloZionist’ is a justified or valid term or characteristic of this power elite. I am not (yet) convinced that the power elite’s ‘ethnic’/tribal composition is the dominant or deciding factor that drives the power elite; ‘AngloZionism’ is not its primus motor. The Middle East is a side-show in their eyes. Their global aim is the promotion of a non-sectarian ideology that will reduce us all to conformity and trelldom.
Instead, I think the driving forces behind our power elite in Britain, the one in the U.S., and the ones in practically all other countries, are money (personal wealth and also control of international wealth) and power (as an aphrodisiac). Their sense of entitlement is an important factor. Their willingness to inflict untold suffering on other people is a facilitating factor; it allows them to be cruel without really noticing. – Gunnar
Stick to your guns, Saker. The term “Anglo-Zionist Empire” is perfectly clear, straightforward and accurate.
Personally I think there is some degree of Western guilt in this religion of “Holocaustianity.” The Allies bombed Dresden, treated the Germans shamefully and orchestrated the Nuremberg Trials, which in many ways were a revenge exercise rather than search for justice. I think the guilt is in what the West did, so they try to displace it and put all the blame on the Nazis. .
You think that you are clever…..The Allies bombed Dresden…..It is not true.
Dresden was bombed only, ONLY by American and British… But you say by ALLIES, it means by Russia, France, Tito’s Partisans, Dutch, Greek…etc.
It is clear from the historical record that the British supported the Zionist project starting before WWI, then really picking up speed in the twenties, both in the political halls of Europe and on the ground in what later became known as Palestine. Long before teh Holocaust the British and Lord Rothschild were encouraging an influx of Jews into Palestine and clandestinely lbuying up property, creating settlements, daming the Jordan River, etc. AFter the Zionists turned on the Brits (in teh forties) with a series of terrorist attacks, teh British more or less walked away from the Palestine “problem,” made insoluble by the intransigence and terrorism and militarism of the Jews and their gangs. The Americans took up the banner as the primary sponsors of Israel, for their own geostrategic reasons, and ever since WW2 and increasingly since the Six-Day War and the Yom Kippur War, it has been well understood that only the Americans can have any real effect on constraining what the Zionists do. And teh Americans let them do whatever they want.
So, I see absolutely nothing wrong with the term ‘AngloZionist.” This is a partnership made in hell that exploits the extermination of Jews in Europe to extend hegemony in teh ME and has succeeded in making any discussion of the actual actions of Israelis/Zionists taboo. We must break that taboo.
I completely agree that the best way to view the Jews is as a tribe. And in the ME now we have the areas that politically were most advanced as of the end of WW1 sandwiched between, basically, two tribal societies: The Israelis and the Saudi Arabians. The atavistic tribal entities must not be allowed to call the shots in the ME or elsewhere.
I just saw a documentary on Claude Lanzmann—I guess this documentary is up for an Oscar in the documentary category. It reminds me of how influential his film, Shoah, was in cementing the concept of the Holocaust as a defensive barrier against any criticism of the state of Israel. I do not give credence to those whose “revisionism” rests on questioning gasing and crematoria. To question these facts is a huge waste of time as they are established. There is a strong historical and documentary record. IMO serious revisionists should be following the lead of Guido Preparata and others in devotiong their energy to excavating the underlying origins of the two world wars and of the Russian Revolution. And the interplay of the Zionist project with imperialists in charge especially in Britain and also successive British governments, depending on which party won and who became prime minister.
A very good introduction to the history of the West’s meddling in and screwing up the MENA is provided by Peter Mansfield’s The Arabs. Not my first mention of this title, but I continue to read and to be amazed at the completeness of the histoircal amnesia surrounding these aspects of 20th-century history , when the facts are right out there to be read by anyone. Which is part of the elephant in the room, taboo aspect of these topics as highlighted by The Saker.
Katherine
Jeez, I wish this comment wuld hurry up and disappear from the comment box. I have something else to say, namely, about Dresden. Churchill ordered teh fire bombing of Dresden. And, i think, Hamburg. No military targets in teh former. Repeated fire bombings so that people who ran to the rivers to get away from flaming streets soon found that the rivers were also aflame. Churchill was a monthster. Plus a Z ionist.
OK, please, disappear now. Pooooof.
@Caryl Johnston on February 03, 2016 · at 2:39 pm UTC
“Nuremberg Trials, which in many ways were a revenge exercise rather than search for justice.”
Exactly!!!!!!!!!!!
That was the reason why all of the high ranking officers from SS lived their lives in paradise of the South America. It looks like including Hitler they have received the reward for the good job what they have done for the parasites.
It was the first attempt for the NWO with the disastrous results.
Your view on racism is interesting & here’s mine on abrahamic monotheisms including Judaism.
Since all 3 (4 including secular variants) consider themselves the only true path & all others to be worthy of destruction, they themselves must be destroyed.
As a Sikh, I feel strongly for the people living under abrahamic slavery. Nowhere where they have gone have they allowed any ‘pagan’ population to survive in significant numbers.
This is not due to their Moral, ideological or spiritual slavery but, their history of violence & subversion which is carefully covered up.
For the sake of love & freedom in humanity, they must be & will be destroyed by the Khalsa. Rome, Mecca & Medina will burn & Rus will return to the ideology of Sapta Sindhu; which gave it its r1a1 lineage & name for rivers like Don & Dneiper.
One is born into a tribe, that’s that. As a christian of course you promote ethnic subversion. In line with other abrahamic ideologies
A saying about muslims is neither loyal to father nor brother
Even bible says if you don’t hate your father, mother, Brother, sister etc you can’t be my follower.
There’s nothing holy about christianity, western isms, judaism or islam. All are just based on normative inversion
Saker you follow a man (abraham) who married his own sister & pimped her. You can go on about new testament etc. But, this is worthless to someone who knows the game.
Mods will probably consider this an attack & not approve lol. :D
Jai Hind.
http://yugaparivartan.com/2016/01/23/aryan-invasion-theory-the-genetics-part-ii
Are we in the Kali Yuga?/Is it about to end? I would like to know more about your knowledge regarding this era of mankind’s history.
We are in it, as for when it will end not sure. Irrelevant either way, Ksytria dharam has no concept of past or future. Only preparation & execution
Jesus declared that no one knows exactly when the Kingdom would come, it might come when one is sleeping so it is best if one is ever prepared.
We always armed so invasion of circumcised beef eaters with melech ideology of no substance no worry.
they wish to destroy dharam source of contention; they try to turn our subjects against us.
bible was not written by 1man & was edited over centuries;certainly invalid.
Only Ksytria can be Chakrvart not jew.
Where would the British army be without the Sikhs
http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/concoughlin/100193886/where-would-the-british-army-be-without-the-sikhs/
Singh,
Your beliefs concerning class/caste and especially chakvart supremacy, are the mangled results of AngloZionist social and religious engineering.
You are literally oozing with Abrahamic beliefs and attitudes, all of which seem indicernable to you. Now you are uprooted and become like the Jew — roaming the planet, bullying people and insisting on your special qualities and entitlements.
This is how all modern religion operates — making use of the dissonance created by programmed and/or manipulated beliefs.
Truthfully, you are a British Hindu, forerunning beliefs of the long planned one world religion. Sikhism is to Hinduism what Wahhabism or Ishmailism is to Islam. The globalist zionists are enacting your preffered class system as we speak, Singh. This is why Sikh Khalsa terrorists who murdered 300 people are sheltered in Canada. They’ve done their bit for the Queen and can retire peacefully to Burnaby or Brampton.
Not really, I live in Punjab & know I’m a Hindu. Good try though,
What I said about the Solar or Ikshvaaku Dynasty predates whites period.
Abrahamic copycat Sikhi rejects caste & Indian history. So your response is laughable, you say abrahamic because we say we’re superior :
2,500 years ago, upon witnessing the defeat of Alexander, Brahmin Acharya Chankya Ji said:
One white is dirtier than 1000 chandals (lowest caste) Indeed among men, there is no one dirtier.
The only TRUE religion is: No religion.
The way forward means to overcome the hurdles and to finally get rid of stone age beliefs.
Let’s analyze your statement (don’t mean to sound hostile in this)
1. Linear view of history : abrahamic check
2. One path rest are false : abrahamic check
3. Holier than thou: abrahamic check
Remember to always check your views with reality (political expediency ie annals of power)
Is it feasible to think the currently besieged europe will remain on this demographic suicide path?
Also, ‘ideology’ involves
Worship, Politics & Art (incl story)
Worship meaning what is non debateable to an adherent.
It may be the holiness of someone or in your case I assume radical egalitarianism
Politics meaning direction, ethos & laws of society
Art ties into worship as it sets the frame for what is socially acceptable to display
Now, you may think that your w euro ‘thinking’ is default. The only person this harms, is yourself & in turn your people & civilization.
4. Radical self hatred & denial of heritage: abrahamic check
No religion also involves no ‘tribal or ancestral’ respect.
Meaning why have borders, why not share your wife?
Which is the core of this & what’s happening. I don’t want to spam links & redirect traffic so just see the twitter I posted, he elaborates on this.
Early christianity is the basis for your modern sjw mentality :
See this pic lol
http://twitter.com/HINDUlSM/status/661528157766311937/photo/1
How do you contend with Hindu atheists for example? It’s possible to have no belief in dieties without giving in to the anti social tendencies that abrahamic ideologies cultivate.
It’s up to you,
Marx, Engels, Lenin, Stalin, Mao
And yes: I have no problems with communists of different enthnicities.
(unfortunately those are rare enough)
Atheists: A world defined by the absence of the christian god, is still a christian world. Just like chastity it is defined by what is denied.
It’s Ground Hog day.
Here comes the Saker Anglo-Zionist rant!
Please get out the whips and lash him thoroughly.
(Of course, I’m pulling, my friend’s leg, folks.)
Saker, it must be tiring to repeat the same basic principles for the people who seem to have hearing issues. Anyone who is sincerely interested in finding the truth will read and check and reconfirm and test and eventually come to his own conclusion. In French there is a saying :”Il n’y a pas plus sourd qui ne veut entendre”. “None so deaf as he that will not hear”
After reading your AngloZionist article for the nth time in the last few months, I always find nuggets of gold in it. For example, the techniques used by the AngloZionists to hide the truth leading others to pretend that they do not see this elephant in the room is used by almost everyone who tries to manipulate others, either for greed, power, or other dark motives. The study of the AngloZionist phenomenon can be used as a blueprint to understand how people are generally manipulated.
For those interested in the manipulation techniques used by the authorities, there is an old (1983) but still useful little book called: “The Manipulated Mind, Brainwashing, Conditioning and Indoctrination” by Denise Winn. The world has gone a long way into using there techniques to keep the sheep in check. So far it has worked for the majority, but cognitive dissonance is increasing, and more people will feel compelled to revise their belief system.
Keep doing your excellent excellent work Saker, I and other readers surely understand the full value of your contribution to disseminating the Truth.
Saker, can you contact Putin? Have you in any way know how to contact him?
Very easy to contact President Putin – http://en.letters.kremlin.ru/
Saker, thanks, much needed and refreshing update.
The Portuguese, Spaniards, Dutch, Germans, Italians, the French, the Papacy, and others (say, Belgium), and the British most prominently, set sail around the planet with sword and gun and cannon and bibles and declared just about wherever they went their property.
Now those who control the United States have been making and are making a nightmarish horror of trying it.
I wonder if the current rabid situation is more precisely described as the Anglo-American-Zionist Empire. Canada, New Zealand and Australia seem more like torn vassals than enthusiastic partners to the Empire. England’s PTB, on the other hand, still seem hands on dirty and willing.
From what I read, Australia is an enthusiastic member of the AngloZionist “family.” Or maybe, religion.
Katherine
“If their way is by deception, then ours ought to be by truth, because, as Christ said, the truth shall make us free.”
I would like to point out, as a Buddhist, that the word ‘truth’ mentioned here opens a can of worms for humans beings. According to the Buddha, there are two truths. Normally ‘truth’ refers to ‘conventional truth’, which is always an assertion from a point of view. The truth referred to here in this sentence and the truth that ‘Christ’ refers to, is ultimate truth. This is a ‘knowing’ that doesn’t require learning or acceptance of an opinion of an other person. It is one of the qualities of a buddha. Ultimate truth is the only ‘truth’ that can set you free. This is the fundamental crux of the matter. Education and the intellect are the only tools we have to approach ultimate truth, but ultimate truth is not a function of the intellect! It like switching a radio from AM (conventional truth) to FM (ultimate truth). Best of luck, human beings! Way to go! We will all become buddhas one day (how much suffering by not striving and, aquiring this great knowing of ultimate truth do we need to experience?). Dear Saker, you are a great human being… This is THE subject that needs to be discussed and strived for; you will understand. Wisdom, compassion and good fortune are needed.
I don’t agree in comparing Buddha Ji with jesus. It is said that Arihants only take birth in high families & pure lineages like Brighus (brahmins) or Ikshvaaku / Hari Vansh (Ksytrias)
As abraham married his sister & jesus was of this line in addition to neither being aryas you contradict yourself. Neither of them are capable of being proper messengers of truth according to the Buddhism you yourself claim to follow.
In Ambani Sutra Buddha Ji argues for the superiority of Ksytrias over Brighus. Now, what would Buddha Ji say about those who engage in cow slaughter like jesus & abraham + their cousins, the descendents of ishmael?
You can try to subvert yourself with this jesus is buddha talk but, it’s christian nations especially AZ empire trying to destroy everything from Burma to Beijing right now. Using evangelism as a political tool which, is what all abrahamic ideologies are & nothing more.
I understand you may want to coexist & try to digest these people but, there is reason Guru Gobind Singh Ji had to come into this world. First we should tell the truth about these ideologies & their prophets.
I will not say anymore out of respect for the mods requesting I use ‘gentle’ language.
Please do not ever compare a melech with sons of Ikshvaaku especially a Vishnu Avatar like Buddha Ji (also Ram Avatar)
It is my Chandrvansh whom these people paid obeisance to in Mahabharat & they will again with the blessings of Guru Sahib.
Singh. I´ve read your comments with a great interest. So you are a Sikh? I know nothing about Sikhs and your religion, but now I assume that you are a Hindu? Perhaps you represent a certain faction of Hinduism? I understand your deep-rooted hatred against West and Christianity, since the crimes West has committed under the false-flag of Christianity are endless. I also understand that since you´ve been seeing only this false side of the so-called Christianity, you are against abrahamic religions. But understand that also Jesus was against those Jews who were using religion only as a tool for power and prosperity. He was in a constant war of words with Jewish priests because he saw them as “born from the snakes” and ” the synagogue of the Satan.” This is not a question about religions. This is about who are born from the truth, not from the snakes. And Jesus was searching those, who he once called “the lost children of Israel”. But don´t think a second that he was referring anything even close to current artificially created state of Israel. I don´t go to details in this topic, because I should write a book about it, to get you fully understand it. But believe me, West is Anti-Christian, not Christian. To me their biggest crime is that false and forced Christianity. Read teachings of Jesus and you will understand much more about this topic. I agree with you that something must disappear from this world before we can live in peace, but the problem is that now we don´t have a common denominator for it. How can we recognize the enemy if we even don´t know how to call it? That´s why this article is important. It´s an attempt to that direction, to find a common denominator. And you should learn to understand were are your real enemies, and also who are your true brothers. Then you know where you should stand when the End is at hand.
Sikhs are Hindus. Christians same as jew & islam all melech to us, we’re all kafir/gentile/heathen to you.
Your false Vs real christianity reads like real v fake Islam nonsense. You are happy that poor Hindus have converted in small numbers, & will be sad when we deal with them. don’t lie & bs like Paul.
Nobody knows what jesus said bible was written centuries after his death.
We have common denominator & common enemy. Abrahamic slaves/minions
Free your soul from abraham’s grip,you should read the writings of Guru Gobind Singh Ji. Christianity is uncivilized & savage,
Christian taqiyah about real christianity being different is no less hilarious than the religion of peace activists.
Please spare us the globalism, jesus was a jew & fought with other jews. This is not relevant to other nations, like Rome where christian mobs burnt down pagan temples.
The abrahamic theologies are the same and work together. History is witness,
Wil make polite & curt comments then @mods
The lineage of the Aryas should not be insulted by comparing it to the lineage of abraham who practice incest (marriage within 16 gotras), cow slaughter & circumsion.
There is no truth in these practices or in their ideology. If you study Buddhism deeply, you will find this to be true.
Losang Lekshe,
When it comes to debasing the ideology of Anglo-Zionist or an American Empire, the word “truth” here refers not as much to spiritual world, but to the actual reality that is based on facts.
The word “Truth” is used here in its original meaning as an opposite to false-reality or instead-of-reality that we are being fed by false-media or instead-of-media. For example, instead-of-French instead-of-artist erects a giant vagina in center of Paris as an instead-of-art, but it’s been represented to us as “art.” Or… Milo Moire, an instead-of-Swiss instead-of-artist, performs a naked instead-of-protest in Germany, turning a tragedy of people involved on both sides into the most revolting farce. This instead-of-performance puts real German women in a gutter. It turns the real concern of German women about real violence against them into something farcical. Instead-of-women instead-of-German have taken the central stage leaving the real German women with no voice and no stance in this engineered nightmare which is this instead-of-migration of instead-of-Syrian instead-of-refugees.
Thus, they turn reality into instead-of-reality. They turn truth into instead-of-truth.
Your comments saying that reality doesn’t reality exists, is one of the psy-op methods to confuse people and to turn reality and truth in instead-of-reality.
You say: ” the word ‘truth’ mentioned here opens a can of worms for humans beings.”
Your instead-of-Buddhist reference is used to turn the readers away from seeking truth.
You say: “Normally ‘truth’ refers to ‘conventional truth’, which is always an assertion from a point of view. ”
This is what the creators of false-reality and pseudo-reality are doing, they are instilling in people’s minds an idea that reality, which consists of facts, is nothing but “a point of view” or an “opinion.”
Read our articles. Thesaker’s authors are dedicated to dismantling this “instead-of-reality” and revealing the truth, which is an actual reality in which people and nations exist.
Is there an analogy with the use of Islam when you mean ISIS, as in “Islamic terrorists”? – “Jewish” when you mean “Zionist”?
Is there not a disanalogy between “Anglos” and “Jews”? Anglo is perhaps too narrow. I take it that it refers only to the US “establishment”. More generally, Europeans (Portugese, Spanish, French Belgian, Dutch, and British, and latterly European Americans) have engaged in rapine and murder across the world. They have persecuted whomsoever suited them. Jews by contrast have been persecuted through the ages. (A sub-set of them in the last century turned colonialist. So, “Zionist”, not “Jewish”. You do the work of the Zionists and the Jew haters by persisting in using the terms so apparently interchangeably.)
What is gained by referring so freely to “Jews” when you mean Zionists? And what is lost if you refer rather to the US “deep state” and the Zionist “deep state”? And what is gained by carelessness in talking about the holocaust (the historic events) and “The Holocaust” the Zionists’ propaganda construct? The history has been gone over with a fine tooth comb. There is nothing to be gained by talking about “doubting” numbers or methods. It smacks of juvenile bravado.
It was the same in earlier discussion of the Russian revolution. The revolutionaries naturally targeted the main pillars of the old regime, the autocracy and the Church. A number of the revolutionaries were Jewish (because the Jews were one of the groups most persecuted by the old regime). Many Bolsheviks were Jews, but not many Jews were Bolsheviks. Yet the revolution is blamed on “Jews” who waged a “genocidal” war on Church and state! What is to be gained by this? What sort of answer is it to say, “It’s just plain historic fact that the Jews tried to destroy the Church” (or Russia or whatever)?
And to quote Church Fathers seems odd. Did the early church not make a point of trying to shift the blame for the death of Jesus from the Romans who crucified him and soon became patrons worth attracting to the faith, to the Jews whom the Christians had been busily trying to distinguish themselves from, so that, by the time of the Fathers quoted, a Jewish sect had come to define itself in contradistinction to Judaism, and many of its adherents had come to hate Jews as the alleged killers of Christ.
This whole business seems counter-productive. It distracts from the point of the analysis here. It no doubt allows many to dismiss the analysis here. It attracts many genuine Jew haters. Nothing is gained by the choice of terminology and the frequent confusion and switching of terms. And something is lost.
Why do it?
I don’t know about the persecution, if you see what Romans said : their religion is basically normative inversion to try & subvert the native culture of a region.
Furthermore, ‘the oppressor is wicked the one who bears oppression more so’ – Guru Gobind Singh Ji
If they wish to exist as a separate entity (tribe) they are responsible for their own protection. Any attempts at inducing guilt just show a lack of dignity (manhood)
See Livus especially :
https://twitter.com/HINDUlSM/status/655001213344288768
Also :
https://twitter.com/HINDUlSM/status/653035109352894468
Getting late here but, just as it’s insane to believe a few english books as true over 1000s of sanskrit ones (for history) ; it’s insane to think one group of people is disliked by everyone else for no reason.
Classic example of inventing victim complex & using to create undignified false moral superiority. Notice no debate on this is allowed, that alone is a big warning sign.
As Tacticus said:
What we hold sacred the Jews consider taboo & vice versa.
Fact is some tribal pagan living in a SE asian jungle has a worldview more in common with Rome; than a secular deracinated professor of western studies or w/e
Really should have a saker forum or something. I know forums are a lot of work so maybe something in between, where you can register usernames (maybe just captcha + password system) & receive alerts.
A lot of good convos & meaningful connections get lost amongst the buzz. No one wants to go through 200 comments to find the ones relevant to them.
Would probably also make mods job easier. I don’t know advanced programming so don’t know if it possible with WordPress.
AEM: the points you make are good points, and to the point. Ali and Ewan have made similar points and pointed out apparent slips of the pen. I think ‘AngloZionist’ and ‘AngloZionism’ are confusing terms that probably put more people off than convince. I certainly would limit my use of it to context of the politics and conflicts of the Middle East.
As for the Church Fathers. The Saker mentions St. John Chrysostom (349-407) who was critical of Jews. I don’t think this is evidence for anything, really. When I was about 13, in around I 1953, I was taken to a Lutheran church in Oslo city. The sermon was delivered by one of the higher ranking Lutheran church fathers, probably a bishop. It was all about how ‘the Jews’ killed Jesus – as if Jesus wasn’t a Jew. Of course, church fathers have tended to respond to my objection by saying that they are not talking about ‘the historical Jesus’ (who they usually concede was indeed a Jew), but about ‘Christ’ who is somehow above and beyond race and sect and tribe by virtue of being the Son of God. If you are a devout Christian, that argument may sound half-convincing in a ‘semantically clever’ sort of way; but it does little to endear a non-Christian to the Lutheran Church.
We have here a similar problem to the one surrounding the term ‘AngloZionism’. It is intended by the speaker to mean one thing, but is understood by others as offensive and racist. So, with AEM, I ask, why persist in employing the term? Double meanings are useful only when correctly understood by the listener/reader. To hear a church father say that Jesus was executed by the Jews sounds rather strange, to say the least; and he spoke of it as if it happened yesterday. A new term has to resonate; it has to be immediately recognizable to the listener.
Having said that, I have many reasons for logging on to The Vineyard of the Saker. He gives me a Russian perspective of Cold War II, and it is a convincing perspective. His understanding of the politics inside Kremlin is interesting and informative. His strategic analyses are excellent and throws light on the intentions of the various military players in any conflict he writes about. He invites interesting experts to the website and puts on interesting film clips. His is a very good website, as far as I am concerned. OK, he is a Russian Orthodox, but I like the way he says it: he sounds – well – spiritual; he looks for the heart and soul of his faith. I like that.
But this ‘AngloZionist’-concept I find confusing, and different commenters on this thread, while defending it, have different understandings of it. Some say it means anyone who appropriates other people’s land and livelihood (apparently with no reference to ‘Jews’ of any kind); others say it is used as a liberating or rhetorical term to help us (and others) break down a taboo. And all this is fine in itself – because the taboo is there – but the term must refer to something recognisable. When the New Left adopted the words ‘obscene’ and ‘perverted’ to describe America’s rape of Vietnam, we could readily point to acts – war crimes; we could be quite specific, and skeptics could immediately see what we meant. No-one has, on this thread, been able to do that as regards the expression ‘AngloZionist’; they simply use it symbolically or emotively. Or so it seems. Symbolically of what?
Some posts have suggested alternative terms such as ‘cabal’ or ‘Aristocrat-elite’ or ‘configuration’; I still think ‘power elite’ is the best one for now. I am all for breaking taboos, but it has be apparent to outsiders and newcomers to this thread that that is what we are doing. As it is, it is not apparent, and instead is sounds like that clergyman who persisted in blaming the Jews for the death of the Christ. We need to fine-tune our understanding of how a term is received, not just why it is used. – Gunnar
AEM: just a quick addition to my previous post:
There are a few people who concede that Jews have been discriminated and persecuted ‘all over the world’ but who then ask, “What did the Jews do that have made them persecuted?” They are trying to blame the Jews for their fate in the hands of nationalists ‘all over the world’.
I would say this: if a Northern country like Norway was prepared to put up with a clergy who, quite openly, in a huge church – it may have been a cathedral – in the centre of (what Norwegians consider) Western Civilisation, blames ‘the Jews’ for the killing of Jesus – if a self-regarding country like Norway could do that in c. 1953, what right have we to blame the Jews for the persecution they have endured through history. I am quite prepared to believe that much of the persecution of Jews through history has been based on the sort of drivel that this senior church father/bishop espoused that day to a large congregation of true Lutheran believers. No wonder that many Jews, in many countries, adopted a defensive position within their local communities and isolated themselves.
Some might argue that we should not judge governments on what certain misguided church fathers espoused from their pulpits. True, but in Norway we had a State Church – the Church was, administratively, part of the Department of Education and Church, and the clergy received their salaries from the government. They were, in effect, public servants. And yet, that section of the clergy who had received a narrow-minded Fundamentalist training were permitted to trot out the tendentious rubbish about the Jews murdering the Christ.
It is even more surprising that these members of the clergy were prepared to say such stupid things when we consider that the sermon that I witnessed took place 10-13 years after Oslo had been emptied of its small Jewish community by the Nazi invaders. Those Jews who didn’t escape had been shipped off to Germany and only a few returned to Norway after the war. It was as if, to these members of the clergy – who were very much part of the Norwegian Establishment or power elite – there had never been a Holocaust.
I have heard the argument that Jews held considerable economic power in certain central European countries. This may well be true, but this did not apply in Norway. Jews constituted a tiny minority in pre-War Norway, and they did not enjoy any unfair advantages. They were well integrated into Norwegian society. Many had married Gentiles. So there were no economic or sociological reasons for Norwegians resenting their Jewish minority. And yet, a section of the Lutheran Church in Oslo, and the national government behind it, allowed such drivel to be circulated to congregations in the country’s most esteemed churches.
This raises the question, does it not, where does this scapegoating originate? I would suggest that there is a Tradition – a tradition all over Western Christendom – spuriously ‘based’ on Scripture and on the debate between St Paul and the disciple Peter about the ‘inclusion’, or otherwise, of Gentiles into their fledgling Christian colonies. In fact, though, I think some of the antipathy is based on envy: in many countries the Jewish communities were close-knit and stable in an environment marred by wars and instability. – Gunnar
AEM: I am addressing this to you, but really I’m just thinking aloud. I’m interested in this brief episode in my life – hearing this senior representative of Norwegian Lutheran Church referring to ‘The Jews’ murdering Christ/Jesus.
In his essay, The Saker makes a distinction between criticising ‘Jews’ on the basis of their religion versus on the basis of their ‘ethnicity’/tribal identity – and that the latter could be construed as racist whereas the former is not because a religion is a fair target of criticism. That sounds alright. However, in the case of this senior member of the clergy saying, “The Jews killed Jesus/Christ” we have an interesting problem: if they say, “The Jews killed (the historical) Jesus”, then it can be perceived as a ‘them against us’ racist statement: that it was tribal Jews, qua Jews, that killed Him. If they say, “The Jews killed Christ”, then it can be perceived as a theological statement: ‘the mainstream Judaic Jews, or, more narrowly, the supporters of the High Priest (who was a Judaic Jew), killed Christ for theological reasons because the High Priest saw Christ/Jesus as a heretic or iconoclast or as a disruptive and potentially a dangerous anti-Roman political, element who might get the Jews in trouble with the Roman occupiers.
So, the senior clergyman’s statement can be interpreted either way: either as a ‘racist’ statement, or as a religious statement. This makes his statement ambiguous, and the listener of the clergyman’s message may well morph the two interpretations into one, and conclude that ‘the Jews’ were no good anyway because they killed Christ for his theological beliefs but they also killed him because somehow he was ‘a Jew’. In this context, it is hard to disentangle the legitimate theological target of Judaism (or Jesus’ heretical version of it) from this peculiar and irrelevant observation that he was a ‘Jew’ in the tribal/ethnic sense.
And remember that the speaker is a non-Jew; he is a Germanic or Aryan or Caucasian or white or whatever you may wish to call him. This gives the listener the impression that the speaker is passing a judgement on a group of people who are ‘outsiders’ in an ethnic/tribal sense even though this same group of people are ‘insiders; in the sense that ‘they’ and we share elements of the Old Testament. The fact that ‘the Jews’ are placed in a conflicting position of being perceived by this clergyman as both insiders and outsiders intensifies the speaker’s mental conflict, and we end up with what I would call a ‘word salad’ – a jumbled mix or meanings and metaphors.
Now, where does this statement, ‘The Jews killed Jesus’, originate? We shall never know for sure – in fact it harks back, in part, to my comment on Mike Munford’s post where I noted that history is not an exact science and much of ‘history’ consists of what historians interpret and extrapolate from primary sources (documents; eyewitness accounts, etc.). Having said that, I will posit an hypothesis: I do wonder whether it started with the dispute between Saints Paul and Peter about whether their newly established Christian colonies should accept uncircumcised applicants – in other words Gentiles – into their small, struggling congregations. (Remember, Paul was getting more and more cross that well-connected and vocally fluent females were speaking up during their meetings, presumably disrupting Paul’s manly train of thoughts).
So, the debate between Paul and Peter was about who was ‘in’ and who was ‘out’. And, although it is claimed that Paul and Peter eventually settled their differences, (and here is my hypothesis:), I would suggest that this ‘in’/’out’ dispute kept reverberating in some (if not all) of these primitive Christian communities, for years afterwards, and that the Gentile ‘wing’ in these communities eventually became dominant (well, they did, didn’t they: the communities became identified as ‘Christian’ rather than an ‘heretical’ off-shoot of Judaism) and its members felt a need to dissociate themselves from the Judaic and indeed from the tribal/ethnic element, which had been their origins. And this inner split, this inner conflict, became embedded in a Tradition carried by many churches over the next two millennia.
And so, we on this thread, the debate we are having, could be seen as a ‘reverberation’ of that ancient, primitive identity crisis that took place in the early Christian communities under the auspices of Paul, Peter, and others. It could be argued, in an Alexander Kojevean way, that the Paul-Peter debate was of such importance to the search for identity and differentiation, that the Church – and we – are still ‘re-adjusting’ ourselves – aligning ourselves on this in/out issue.
The Saker observes that he is rarely taken to task about the ‘Anglo’ element of the expression ‘AngloZionist’. The explanation for that – in part – is that ‘Anglo’ never underwent that kind of intense and soul searching process of theological and ethnic/tribal identity search as did the ‘Zionist’ part. As a result we are not all that concerned whether by ‘Anglo’ we mean the American power elite or the British one or Echelon, or some disease derived for any of these that has infected ‘outsiders’ such as Obama – and indeed many Scandinavians, too. NATO was, till recently, led by a man who was, in his previous life as Prime Minister of Denmark, absolutely sure – he just ‘knew’ he said – that Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction. – Gunnar
AEM: just a quick remark on the ‘hypothesis’ in my last post. My hypothesis is partly based on, partly inspired by, Hyam Maccoby. I first read about the Saints Paul-Peter debate in a book by Maccoby titled “The Myth Maker: Paul and the Invention of Christianity” (1986). Chapter 15: ‘The evidence of the Ebionites’ (pp. 172-183) is central. In the book, Maccoby points the finger at the Romans and their appointee, the High Priest (p. 48), and his coterie. Maccoby says that the High Priest had no real objections to Jesus’ theology (which was based on the Torah) but was concerned that Jesus’ movement could create trouble for the Jews by its anti-Roman political stance. Not that the High Priest was pro-Roman; it was more the case that his main priority was to keep the peace with the Romans and hope that one day the Romans would go away.
More to the point, Maccoby suggests that Paul was in conflict with the ‘Jerusalem Church’, led by Peter and James. He says that the Jerusalem movement was closer to Jesus’ own position than the Pauline Christian communities. The Jerusalem movement was based on the Torah but eventually died out, leaving Paul the theological/ideological victor.
My hypothesis is that it was within these communities – Paul’s Christian colonies – that the ‘split’ between the original Jesus, defender of the Torah, and the new Gentile element being admitted into these communities, took place. And, although the split was papered over (and indeed denied and silenced), and Gentile and Jew were accepted as equal partners within his communities, the debate with Peter and James and the traumatic step of abrogating the Torah, led to – what I would suggest – Kojevean reverberations down the centuries, up till c. 1953 when a faction of the Norwegian State Church were prepared to blame ‘the Jews’ for the execution of Jesus by virtue of their being Jews. I would suggest that there was, within the Pauline communities, a faction that harboured unconscious guilt at having abrogated the Torah in the name of what became Christianity, and these members passed on their guilt-ridden but dissociated ‘solution’ to future generations of Christians.
Does this have anything to do with the notion of ‘AngloZionism’? Well, it may have. Some posts on this thread have used the term to project backward in time. Some have called the Venetian influence on English banking and in the English Court in the late 17th century an example of ‘Zionism’. Others have projected the term back to the land-grab of the Enclosure Movement of 1795-1805. Now, to my mind it’s alright to draw parallels between Zionism and these historical events; but it is not valid to say that they are somehow the same. To do that is anachronistic. And that is not alright because to do that is to impute ‘Zionism’ with an influence, and with the power of a causal-effect back into history, that it simply does not have. – Gunnar
AEM: you are absolutely right! The Russian Revolution was ideologically and class driven, not driven by Zionism (or AngloZionism) in either the traditional or the new sense promulgated by The Saker and some posts on this thread. To attribute the Russian Revolution to ‘Jews’ or ‘Zionists’ is an example of ‘tribal reductionism’ – reducing most historical conflicts to a contest between Jews and Gentiles.
As for the origins of Fundamentalist wings of various Christian churches blaming ‘the Jews’ for the execution of Jesus, I agree with you that it has to so with the early St Paul-dominated communities, having opened their doors to Gentiles, and now wanting to dissociate and differentiate themselves from their Judaic roots. How exactly this happened – the mechanisms involved – is of course a matter of speculation and debate, but I agree with you that this is what happened – and became part of Church tradition – reverberations of which are still felt on this thread.
I sympathise with The Saker’s concern about the Bolsheviks’ repression of the Russian Orthodox Church since 1917. But, like AEM, I think his anger is misdirected. It was atheistic Marxism that saw the Orthodox Church as its enemy. Most Jews in Russia – as far as I can ascertain – were ‘insular’, if you like; they preferred to mix within their own sub-culture and many did not see themselves as ‘Russians’. Hence, they were not wedded to either the 1917 Revolution or to the attempted counter-revolution of the early 1920s. They simply lacked a Russian-driven nationalism. And before we start criticising them for that, I wonder whether their ‘insularity’ was a response to Christian allegations against them down the centuries – that ‘they’ somehow killed the Christ. Not a nice thing to be accused of, especially when it is unfounded but based rather on clever Christian sophistry and innuendo.
I am not opposed to the term ‘deep state’. It sounds a bit Gothic and ‘Dragons and Dungeons’-like: dirty, grungy and decadent. One can imagine the more intellectual members of the power elite (all males; they are afraid of the female) sitting in atom-bomb safe shelters, hundreds of meters underground, planning, plotting, and buying tickets on the internet for the next Bilderberg show, and in the meantime writing journalistic twaddle for the mainstream press while enjoying the beat of heavy metal music, and growing pale and anaemic on astronaut food, their brain cells shrinking into deformed neoliberal nuts.
I am sorry. I got carried away by dreams of alliterations. ‘Deep state’ is alright; so is ‘Nato-ism’. Since the assassination of President Kennedy and its whitewash by the Warren Commission, and NATO’s extension of its sphere of interest to encompass the whole globe – well, why not. However, with Cicero I must say, “Besides, I think neoliberalism should be erased”. That’s what he said, wasn’t it? – Gunnar
Sorry, it wasn’t Cicero (106-43BC) who repeatedly said, “Furthermore, I believe that Carthage must be destroyed”; it was Cato the Elder (234-149BC). Carthage was erased in 146BC; Cato never lived to see it. – Gunnar
I am on a hurry now.
I do not fully agree on “Anglo-Zionist Empire” term, but I will not object nothing to a person which wants to use it. I do not see nothing reprobable on it.
The Zionist and para-Zionist ideology (BHL; Soros… “Westernocentism”; liberalism as “ultimate stage on history”) must be criticized, I agre. Jewish nationalists myths (Jewish as aethernal victims, Jewish as primary victims, Jewish as unique bloc in hstory) must be cirticized. I agree on that.
But I think that imperialism is more an economic phenomenon, not a ideological one. I think that Empire today concentrate on USA ans EU, and Israel is their pawn. Zionist ideology is crucial at this stage, but can be removable for the Empire if convenient.
I hope I have explained well (ENglish is not my mother tongue).
There can NOT be any empire without an ideological basis, I assure you. That’s simply not possible.
The current empire’s main ideology is neoliberalism. Arguably that is also the main ideology of most of the top zionists.
I would argue that the elite’s main ideology is “power and wealth”. And that the use of zionism to help gain it for them is secondary. Its useful for them.And some of their most useful dupes are very attached to it. Hence the inclusion as in “Anglo-Zionist Empire”. But if it ever really got in the way of their “real” ideology,it would go.
Heh. Well, “neoliberalism”, “power and wealth” — I say po-tay-to, you say po-tah-to . . .
OK, but I think that Zionism is not the core ideology of the Western imperialism: capitalism and free market (liberalism) are. Zionism and Israel are part of it, I think, more useful to discredit the opponents of the Empire (to domesticate the left, to distort the massacres against Slavic peoples and place them under “centuriies of Jewish oppression”, of to deslegit Palestinian/Arab resistance…)
Oxandabaratz: I agree with you – (A) that Empire building and hegemony are motivated by making money and controlling as much of the world’s wealth as possible. And control equals political power. You look at the faces during U.S. House Foreign Relations Committee hearings, and you see the arrogance on their faces while they are discussing what will happen to this or that country unless it submits. But hestroy is right, too, that this ‘mission’ goes hand in hand with, and is justified by, an ideology or mythology. Abu Ghraib was, ultimately, in the service of democracy. Of course. It happened because they wanted to protect us. Well, the road to Hell is paved…
(B) that “Empire today is concentrated in the USA and EU and Israel is their pawn”. A useful pawn.
What do the supporters of the term ‘AngloZionism’ mean by it? Do they mean that,
(1) the Anglos and the Zionist elites are so intertwined that differentiation is impossible as to their political and financial agendas? – or:
(2) the two components can be differentiated, allowing each to have somewhat different agendas each of which can be identified by discerning outsiders like us?
(3) both Anglos and Zionists are more or less equally strong within this ‘partnership made in hell’? – or:
(4) one component is dominant. In which case, is one component dominant all the time, the other simply acting as advisor or court jester? – or:
(5) the two components take turns, as it were, in being the dominant partner, maybe depending on the political-military-financial issue at hand? – or?
(6) the term does not strictly refer to any identifiable ‘thing’ (grouping; power elite) but is a rhetorical device used by us in order to:
(7) highlight what we see as two ‘evil’ forces which, if we collapse them into one, is made to look even more evil and makes us feel like St George fighting one big dragon? – or:
(8) a rhetorical device used by us as a tool of consciousness raising – so that Jews generally, Zionists in particular, and Gentiles, we all become aware of the vise which has us all in its grip, so that we can then shed our fear of the taboo (of mentioning either component as a dominant force) – and that this will free us from the vise and the fear and help us (and others; newcomers) achieve the goal of beating our adversary. – or:
(9) to make us feel like naughty boys and girls who are being incredibly brave in our quest to transgress a taboo. I’m not being satirical here; there is something slightly ‘taboo’ about the expression ‘AngloZionist’. The proof of that in me is that it makes me feel uncomfortable, that it is not something seriously ‘sayable’, even thinkable. And yet, there is Oscar Wilde’s quip: “I can resist anything but temptation”. I am in ‘differance’. – or:
(10) a fascination with the juxtaposition between a ‘strong’ term and a ‘weak’ one: an Empire builder and hegemon (U.S.), and a tiny country (Israel) submerged somewhere in the deserts of the Middle East; a fascination with contrast and a play on, and with, this contrast; the myth of David and Goliath repeated but this time they play in the same sandpit.
I’m sure that there are many other possible meanings, or implied meanings, to this expression. Personally, I will probably not use the expression ‘AngloZionist’ at all; but I can see why some people may wish to use it – either as a rhetorical device or as a breaker of a taboo. It is a little like when we in the New Left (inspired by Herbert Marcuse) started characterising the American regimes’ behaviour in Vietnam and Cambodia as ‘perverse’ and ‘obscene’, and our parents would feel intensely embarrassed on our behalf. But: there they were, the Australian power elite trying to ban ‘Playboy’ because of its anti-war articles, and there they were, the power elites using napalm and fragmentation bombs against civilians. We took liberties with language, and it paid off – because it resonated. – Gunnar
Dear Saker,as much as I do support
your thoughts about the empire,there is still a high price using the Anglo- Zionist term. That is , many real antisemits use that word to hide their ideology,madness. Using just “Empire” would do good enough IMHO.
It’s a fact that the Rothschilds controlled British finance (hence, British industry and government) from the time of the Napoleonic wars. Which family was one of the major financiers of Zionism (see the Israeli Supreme Court structure)? Eh? It’s also a fact that many Zionist Jews married into British royalty. And, with the “awful power of the purse” men like the proto-Zionist Disraeli were put into place spouting racist “jingoism” to goad their British puppets to mistreat the Indians as well as the white (e.g., Boer genocide, concentration camps.) Then there was Churchill, AnloZionist, born in Brooklyn, with the “right of return” to Israel.
Certainly, it’s easier to “whistle in the dark” and pretend this problem does not exist. We in the U.S. have been ruined militarily, made bankrupt, and lost our freedom because of these people. Oh, we call them nice things like “Neocons.” (Note that poverty in Israel continues increasing among Jews–despite the countless billions extorted from the U.S. and theft of Palestinian land and resources. So someone “not Anglo” is getting rich at all of our expense.) Russia in the time of Yeltzin also “whistled in the dark” during the 1990s with predictable result.
Let’s try a little academic exercise. Ignoring the fact that the Japanese were largely provoked into the Pearl Harbor attack (and also trained and equipped by the same AngloZionists who equipped them to defeat Russia in the Russo-Japanese War) let’s imagine we are not allowed to name the enemy after the attack. Yes, there are planes with large, red circles constantly attacking. Who could they be? They couldn’t possibly be Japanese. After all, the Japanese are lovely and cultured people and hard working. We’d better not shoot at them until we conclusively determine who they are…
Naming them would be “considered” anti-Mongoloiditic(as if the Japanese are the only members of the Mongoloid sub-classification) or anti-Japanesemitic
Why do you think Churchill was of Jewish ancestry? I don’t see anything in his ancestry that would show that. And he wasn’t born in Brooklyn. He was born at Blenheim Palace in England. His mother was American from a family of French Huguenot descent. While his father’s family was of the highest English noble class.That I don’t see any Jewish descent from.His zionism was his own stupidity,not caused by a family background.
Your use of what I consider the accurate and clear term “anglozionist” is one of many reasons that you are one of my trusted sources for information. You don’t mince words or hedge what you have to say and as far as I can tell you speak mostly from experience and facts and not from ideology. Thank you.
Re: “mainstream Anglo personalities as John J. Mearsheimer , Stephen M. Walt or even Jimmy Carter.”
Mearsheimer and Walt are Jews, although not Zionists.
I already told you but agian:
Zionism, including the idea of returning many more or less jews to what even then has been called Israel for the purpose of igniting clashes, war and divide et impera, is an invention of Oliver Cromwell in the 17th century.
Furtheron, Theodor Herzl, as almost all other jews of his time (late 19th century) wanted to leave for Argentina – and not for the still british idea of Palestine/Israel. Thus he must have been persuaded (100s of thousands of Pounds) to turn for the opposite direction.
Zionism in all of it’s aspects is an AngloSaxon invention and has been handed down within the angelican church first and later (other side of the Atlantic) been inherited by the baptist churches.
The whole Zionism is an AngloSaxon invention. But you’re right in that both, Nazism and Zionism both have been invented by the same genius. That’s why it makes no sens to call it AngloZionism as long you don’t call it at the same time AngloNazism.
The AngloSaxon, later together with Nor(th Ger)man(ic)s, developed another culture (than continental germanics, including nowadays swiss people) – have a look at no longer indo-germanic / indo-european socalled language english, especially missing accusative and nominativ declination. All three of them (Angles, Saxons and Nor(th Ger)mans) succeeded as pirates when conquering british (celtic) islands. That’s what’s burnt into their culture: sea power and conquest.
This principle (sea power and conquest) is what Oliver Cromwell invented as zionism. Later his idea has been used:
1.) to turn the (then) most successful economy [Germany 1870-1900 400% growth of GDP, USA: 1870-1900 only 300%, France: 1870-1900: 250%, UK: 1870-1900: 5%; all figures according to Naill Ferguson, “The Pity of War”, 1998, London School of Economics] into a weapon (against Russia) and at the same time
2.) to implement long lasting terror in the Middle East (establishment of Kuwait, Syria, Jordania, protectorate Palestine …)
The reason is given in the figures above. The same reason Angles and later the Saxons started to conquer the british islands, the Angst of starvation of 50% of the people – read english news paper from 1890th!
All in all: zionism is an anglosaxon principle, it has nothing to do with jewish people flewing Europe. Instead, the Jews must have been bribed to turn to Haifa. That’s exactly what Adolf Eichman did in late 1920th and early 1930th (commissioner of Standard Oil). Both, Jews and Germans are victims of the very same AngloSaxon principle, Zionism, but with different roles: Germans should be the bad guys in Europe and Jews should be the bad guys in the Middle East.
Have a look on history of the 20th century – the AngloSaxons succeeded.
Thus: there are no AngloZionists but AngloSaxons using Germans and Jews for Zionism.
If you don’t believe: think about it the other way round:
How many Zionism will survive when some day (soon) the AngloSaxon empire will have been crushed. How many concepts of AngloSaxon empire will persist in continental Europe?
The answer is very easy: There will be no more Zionism in the Middle East and of course continental Europe will return to more or less natural political structures. E.g. Belgium will be split up and no longer a jump board for the (sea power) UK. Pretty sure Hungary will re-establish it’s pre-1914 borders, Moldavia will be restored as (russian) Bessarabia and Germany will re-unite with Austria and so on and so on. [Sooner or later there will be a litle child saying: look, the imperator is naked.]
The AngloSaxon empire is (may be the people are not) evil. And Zionism is just the principle of ruling the world (like Divide et Impera). This principle is using Jews (like it’s using Germans) to play the game. There are no AngloZionists and it doesn’t matter if there are more or less jewish guys within the empires elite. The only meaningful phrase is AngloSaxons.
BTW: Of course i would be glad to always help you finding the right phrase for the evil empire.
The cleverest thing about the anglo’s is being able to depopulate themselves in England, The US, Canada and Australia soon they will be in a minority as the immigrants are much younger and so more fertile.
Of course Israel is not depopulating itself…
@ph
“The cleverest thing about the anglo’s is being able to depopulate themselves in England, The US, Canada and Australia soon they will be in a minority as the immigrants are much younger and so more fertile….”
Please note the Anglos depopultated the lands of north America, Australia and all other places they pillaged…. it is a bit disingenuous to talk about migrants in the UK when this is exactly the same thing they did to other lands. At least these migrants do not arrive with a sword/gun and a bible claiming every land belongs to them!!!
Kind regards.
El rius
anglos are not a race but a tribe and anglos tribe is waging war on the rest of non anglo world which incidently the rest of world is quite aunawarte of because “anglos2 is the elephant in the room of which it is forbidden to speak.
not only jews buty the anglos infiltration esepcially the infiultration of english agenda in world affairs and in united states is forbidden. anyone talking would be labelled crazy. the english are the main evilo behind msoty of the current world problems and wars. even current war in syria was plotted by the english in london and not by jews in washington or telaviv.
A few years ago I attended a peace march against GW Bush’s Iraq War. I devised a sign I thought was clever: “Axis of Evil — Bush, Blair, Sharon” One of my fellow marchers took exception to my inclusion of Ariel Sharon along side the two evil Anglos, because:
(a) Israel has a right to defend itself and (b) most Israelis are against this war. I don’t dispute those statements, but obviously this otherwise sensible man had drank the Zionist Kool-Aid: first, the notion that Sharon’s aggression against the Palestinians and other “enemies” was done for the sake of defense, and second, that Sharon and his ideological allies were acting in the best interests of the Israeli people. Clearly the infamous “Clean Break” document proves they weren’t.
In fact it was not America but england which asked for ABM againstt Russia. BBC spy journalists were harassing presidential candidate Gore not to go ahead with Florida recount on ground” ally like britian want to conclude AMB deployment in Yorkshire as soon as possible so there should be no delay in govt. formation.” In other word accept fraudulent win of bush for sake of england !
Russia must target (rather than should) the nuclear missiles with multiple war heads against all ( including military instalations) of england because this cold war -like the one before- is being started by england for the benefit of english race only-.it is race war between the english parasite race versus the rest of the world-the sooner the rest of the world realizes that better it is for the world.
look how germany wes villified soon after fall of soviet union-look how russia is being vilified immediately after Putin made russia strong.
Russia’s “partners” understand only two things: the big wallet and the big gun, as satan understands only Saint George’s spear. Time is near.
-such is the evil propaganda of british spies inside america. .
Poland is nothing but a proxy for the british parasites.
It is no use targeting Poland -target the main villain which is england and the english nation which must be sorted out from the face of the world.
http://www.globalresearch.ca/new-world-order-the-founding-fathers/5445255
Ever wondered what word “the west” really means in today’s context as used by the anglosphere ? It is not Mediterranean civilisation of Greece, Italy, Spain or even France. It is not north western European civilisation of Germany or Scandinavia. In fact all these countries have been spied upon by the nations who call and self designate themselves “the west” -a nation otherwise known as 5 Eyes !- A combination of england, usa, canada ,newzealand and australia- disparate nations geographically and not even european ; but esssentially anglosaxon race nations. A race based concept really. West is euphemism for anglos- it does not include any of other white European nations not even the most westerly European nation of Ireland! The word “west” is a fraud to distract from real actors behind the scene-the 5 eyes of cunning English controlled anglo nations.
The Empire is Britain and it enforces its will through its Death Star, which is its USA colony.
“Those with a sense of irony may recall that Benjamin Franklin, one of the leading figures of the Enlightenment, warned that the newly liberated colonies should be wary of allowing Germans to immigrate, because they were too swarthy; Swedes as well. Into the twentieth century, ludicrous myths of Anglo-Saxon purity were common in the U.S., including among presidents and other leading figures.”
Hence comes the myth of white-where white is a code word for English and English parasites’’s derived anglosaxon race who incidentally are much more swarthy than the Irish and Germans who were declared non-whites in usa according to their vocabulary.
In other words anglosaxons though in minority have been able to get hold of power only by myth of white which is to pit one against another while they really mean it for the benefit of not all white races but anglosaxon race only.
Even more proof that the AngloZionist world is for the English speaking countries only, the dumb Germans and French are just being used and will be discarded later.
Finally its evident that the AngloSaxons are the real cause of the problem, always knew the Jews were immaterial.
This, people always think it’s some non white conspiracy but its true. I can get along with any people on the planet except arabs (& arab wannabes) + anglos.
Atleast anglo fifth column girls tend to be easy & relatively attractive. Most anglo girls though,
Don’t know why French were so eager to cross channel. Then again fighting evil comes above pretty women. :D
Hey, Anon, been in Anglia lately? I assure You it is not the natives, who are reaping the fruits of the benevolence of “their” empire. Kinda feel sorry for the silly buggers matter fact.
Way to Tom and Singh.
First Visit to England, from English Traits (1856), Ralph Waldo Emerson
I have been twice in England. In 1833, on my return from a short tour in Sicily, Italy, and France, I crossed from Boulogne, and landed in London at the Tower stairs. It was a dark Sunday morning; there were few people in the streets; and I remember the pleasure of that first walk on English ground, with my companion, an American artist, from the Tower up through Cheapside and the Strand, to a house in Russell Square, whither we had been recommended to good chambers. For the first time for many months we were forced to check the saucy habit of travellers’ criticism, as we could no longer speak aloud in the streets without being understood. The shop-signs spoke our language; our country names were on the door-plates; and the public and private buildings wore a more native and wonted front.
—————————————————
good ol’ blighty
good ol’ usa
good ol’ emerson
AngloZionist is a very good term; if it upsets the conventional wisdom, it’s doing something right. Hidden in the term are a few concealed truths about the fears and aspirations of the middle class (and up) in the U.S. — Anglophilia and fear of being labeled an “anti-semite”. Anglophilia is rarely discussed and practiced openly. We worship the Brits over here, from the Royals to James Bond to Monty Python.
The UK is so caste-conscious that a few words reveal one’s county, city, background etc. Zionism seems a good fit for the upper class in the UK; “chosen people”, superior classes, etc.
Supreme Court Justice O.W. Holmes Junior, around the turn of the 1900’s, is case study of the “Boston Brahmin” mentality that parallels the British upper class:
“[“I’m a democrat in theory [says Holmes], [but] I loathe the thick-fingered clowns we call the people — vulgar, selfish and base.” He hardly mentioned [the James brothers] without referring to the fact they are Irish, with, in Henry James’ case, an intimation of underbreeding in comparison to the Anglo-Saxon… Holmes’ attitude toward the Jews is quite different. Through his intelligence and his love of learning, he has obviously more in common with certain of his Jewish colleagues than with most of his Gentile ones; and there is also no doubt the traditional prestige which the Jews have had in New Engand, due to the self-identification of the Puritains with the Old Testament Israelites. Holmes regarded the intellectual Jew as a special variety of Brahmin.” [Edmund Wilson, “Patriotic Gore”, 1962 p. 784-5]
I’m surprised that so many commenters in this thread are arguing about religion. Saker rightly pointed out that AngloZionism is not so much about religion as about tribalism and ‘ideology’ or world outlook (Weltanschauung). Could we return for a minute to Saker’s defence of the term ‘AngloZionism’? – I have read Saker’s defence and most of it makes sense to me, but not all of it. I have two reservations:
(1) The ‘one percent’ is a global ‘one percent’, although centred in the U.S. and Europe. I favour C. Wright Mills’ term ‘power elite’, rather than AngloZionist, because the concept of a power elite is based on the notion that its membership is in flux but has a certain ‘ideology’ in common. What is that ideology? How many of us on this thread have actually met a millionaire? I’ve met a couple, socially. One of them, he told me, was driving under the influence of alcohol one evening when he was stopped by a police officer. The millionaire didn’t like being challenged. “Do you know who I am!?” he asked the officer, and then looked at his audience (which included me). – Now, this, in a nutshell, is one characteristic that the ‘one percentrers’/members of a power elite have in common: an inflated ego based on political power and/or colossal wealth. They see themselves as ‘self-made’ – they don’t count their indebtedness to early contacts, networking, and manipulations. They see mere mortals like us as stupid and worthless except as industrial fodder.
(2) This attitude is international, global, but rooted in an inflated self-view. That inflation started with a cynical view of humans in support of narrow self-interest. It has very little to do with ‘race’, ‘ethnicity’, religious affiliation; and only marginally with their identification with a ‘tribe’. I assume that the Bilderberg conferences are composed of people who have a shared arrogance, who feel that they were – not so much born to rule – as destined to rule. Sometimes the project a semi-religious meaning into such destiny. Alright, there may be a disproportionate percentage of ‘Jews’ or ‘Zionists’ or ‘Anglos’ among these power elites; but I suspect that more important than that is their conviction that they ‘have’ something that other, normal people (the riff-raff; us) lack: courage, ability, drive, and a sense of organisation and ability to persuade and plan and network. Oligarchs and their political acolytes speak the same language – using forked tongues. Someone mentioned the Enclosure movement. As I understand it, that movement was effected by a diverse group – a power elite – who wanted (1) more land and wealth, and (2) wanted to crush any revolutionary ideas derived from the European Continent. If there were any ‘Jews’ among them, that ‘ethno-religious’ self-identity would have been fairly unimportant. The Enclosure movement was driven by aristocracy, non-aristocratic landowners (wealthy farmers), and the nascent bourgeoisie (business men) with spare money.
The composition of the power elite is always in flux. Compared with the time when C. Wright Mills wrote his book, ‘The Power Elite’, my guess is that there are more bankers, oligarchs, financiers, and fewer top bureaucrats and independent thinkers, academics. Many of them happen to be ‘Jews’ and ‘Anglos’. Many of them happen to be Chinese, Indian, Arabs, Indonesians. They have certain (economic) interests in common: break down organised opposition from trade unions, environmentalists (who may oppose dams building in India, for example), and an independent, critical press.
So, my opposition to the term AngloZionism is that it is an over-simplification. There is a grain of truth behind the term, but the term conceals more than it reveals. As during the Enclosure movement, the elite consisted of an amalgam of moneyed interests with supporters and members in Parliament. Thus laws could be promulgated that stripped the village communities of their land. Secondly, a question that the Saker touches on: is it worth using a misleading term that will alienate potential supporters and sympathisers – when in fact the term is based on a somewhat faulty analysis of the people who push neoliberalism and empire building? I don’t think it is. – Gunnar
@Gunnar Sivertsen on February 03, 2016 · at 8:41 pm UTC
If the Elephant is in the room are you going to call it Zebra???????????
Anonymous: Because (maybe) it is a zebra. I wonder why you use African metaphors? – Gunnar
A lot of answers you can find here
http://pravdu.ru/en/lessons/efimov/
And here
https://m.youtube.com/#/watch?v=OL7_qYZtoT4
So called “curators” of the biblical project are ruling the world. Methodology was invented at latest in Egypt 1500 b. C. and so called Jews are one of their tools for globalization.
Great comment, Gunnar. However, I differ with you in your conclusion about the term Anglo-Zionists. I’ll end with an explanation on that matter.
But first, I share your amazement regarding the passionate posts arguing religion. Much of it seems pointless expense of energy to me. I’m more with Martin from East Berlin, and you, on that. Isn’t it pretty simple?: The Oligarchy worship THEMSELVES and they do not love humanity, truth (either factual or spiritual…..I agree with Scott’s comment on that!) the Universe or anything else but themselves no matter what their race, country of birth or current residence, supposed religion, ideology of the moment, etc. Accordingly, they are evil, as the root of evil is fascination with and love of the tiny and insignificant Particular “me” their small hugely inflated Ego, in contrast to the Universe or the universal principles that pertain to it.
The other thing I find remarkable is the flood of attacks on newcomer (or new commenter) Mike Munford, bearing the brunt of abuse from dozens of British Empire haters from all over the world. I will attack that Empire as well, and never defend it. However, I would invite Mr Munford to stay a while, and return as often as he can, if he is able to grow a thick enough skin to survive this day and this environment. As far as I know, he’s a British subject that objects to what he sees as the American Empire, and apparently has sympathies for Russia, and perhaps Syria? And was thus attracted to this vineyard, possibly? Unless he refuses to see any of the plain historical facts historian Webster Tarpley so eruditely points out in my link detailing the Venetian disease that took over Britain some three centuries ago ( Try this shorter lecture on the same subject, if the Three Stooges Skit in the first link threw you off…and the audio is better: blob:https%3A//www.youtube.com/2dcbd758-c2c5-47c3-bf8a-011fc67c663b ) or the other facts people here have unmercifully pelted him with, I’d give him as much benefit of the doubt as any American that hasn’t wised up yet to the Empire disease we now bear, to the endangerment of the entire planet.
Bernie really went over the top with his “I am waiting for England to disappear under the sea.” I had to laugh. Don’t worry. Bernie, England will sink under the sea. So will Mt Everest and every other bit of land above sea level, within a maximum of 100 or 200 million years. A long wait, but the geologic cycle of continent and mountain formation and erosion is relentless and repetitive. There may have already been 20 such cycles of ranges as high as the Himalayas and the Andes arise and wash away to the sea already since this planet was formed 4.5 billion years ago. It will happen!
The enemy is a disease, not any race or political real estate. It is not the British Isles, it is not the continental USA and it is not Israel. Nor is the enemy fundamentally the human beings resident in these places, whether infected with the disease or free of it.
Barrack Obama is neither an Anglo, nor a Zionist Jew, but he’s infected with the disease. So are many other thousands of powerful Americans, as well as scores of millions of powerless ones who are unaware of their infected state, suffer from it, and even spread it, unconsciously.
The reason I agree with the Saker term “Anglo-Zionist” that troubles you and several others here is that it is particularly apt at this particular strategic conjuncture, as a mind and testicle liberating piece of short and concise language. I doubt that there could be any term that might serve with near perfection for all time, and in all places. But it has particularly powerful liberating potential because fear of saying it is a major, perhaps THE MAJOR psychological vice that the Anglo-Zionist Oligarchy employs to grab the minds (and testicles, figuratively speaking) of most westerners in a terrifying grip that far, far too few can resist for even a nano-second of applied pressure or even the faintest thought of such pressure. Is it an oversimplification? Yes it is. So is any other term you might choose!! But at least Anglo-Zionist has real specific truth to it which might pierce the toughest armor that the Neoliberal Neocon Empire faction clads itself with.
And, since these same people are responsible historically for the NAZI project and have even dusted it off to use against Russia in the Ukraine, this NAZI-ZIONIST tool cannot be allowed to stand. The USA, the West, and Jews anywhere and everywhere need their testicles released from this insidious oligarchical vice, of the mafia “protection racket” variety which has them in its grip. It’s a vicious tool of psychological torture. It has particularly destroyed Germans, including younger generations that have no guilt on that score. Jews are also major victims of it. But to their credit, I have met far, far more Jews that can stand up to it, than Germans. Some of the most gutsy individuals I have ever met.
I meant viSe…not vice. Although it is both.
@ “vice/vise:
It is pronounced “vice” (i.e., vise grip) but spelled “vise.” Except that through confusion regarding pronunciation, “vice” has now become an accepted alternate spelling.
Katherine
“However, I would invite Mr Munford to stay a while, and return as often as he can”
Of course Ted. It’s not Mr Munford I attack but what he says. He’s welcome to try to persuade me otherwise at any time. His was an interesting & very controversial post that has provided incredibly interesting & informative feedback.
Thank goodness the mods seem to let much more “debate” through now.
I remember in the days of Kat Kan (rest her soul) and the notional trillionaire many of my posts met the trash can.
The blog is now more open & interesting for that.
happy to read that my comment made you laugh which is good. But as it is not psychologically good to keep one’s anger inside and as I do not wanted to throw it on poor Mike I vented my frustration with the inevitable. equally happy to read that you also know something about the movement of Earth’s bowels..
ps. England is sinking by 1 cm. per century, the Himalayas are still rising rising . symbolic?
that anon was me bernie
Gunnar
I. @”Alright, there may be a disproportionate percentage of ‘Jews’ or ‘Zionists’ or ‘Anglos’ among these power elites; but I suspect that more important than that is their conviction that they ‘have’ something that other, normal people (the riff-raff; us) lack: courage, ability, drive, and a sense of organisation and ability to persuade and plan and network. ”
Where does Gunnar think they get that sense of entitlement in the first place? In most cases it is bred in teh bone. That is the point of the class system. It has been pointed out that a source of resilience of the Britisih aristocracy was that it constantly “refreshed” itself with with new blood from new money—literallym new centers of wealth creation in teh society. Simultaneously, though, numerous English (and American, and French? Balzac?) novels have as their theme or one of their themes the interplay between new money and old, the fact that it takes a few generations of schooling at Eton , etc., for the “new” DNA to attain the sense of confidence (also in their taste), noblesse oblige, and entitlement to power that characerize this type of elite—also a few generations of interlinking by marriage, club memberships, keeping and racing horses, etc.
II. “is it worth using a misleading term that will alienate potential supporters and sympathisers – when in fact the term is based on a somewhat faulty analysis of the people who push neoliberalism and empire building? I don’t think it is. ”
Actually, it is perfectly legitimate for any thinker to use the terms he/she chooses to use, having defined them clearly first. If others don’t like the term, so what. It is the philosopher’s, or political scientist’s, right to use whatever terms he chooses. I don’t get the “but it might alienate someone” argument. When you are trying to break taboos, avoidance of annoying someone is a trivial concern.
Furthermore, and indeed, this “disapproval” by whomever is actually a significant advantage. These disapprovers won’t be taking the term over and trying to assign to it a different meaning from that of the person who coined the term in the first place. (Just look at the fight over over, e.g., “liberalism” and “conservative.”) They will confine themselves to bitching about it and arguing about it, but they won’t take it over.
Thus, the original coiner continues to enjoy sole use of his own terms.
Katherine
Katherine, what you describe is class and class consciousness which is pronounced in Britain (at least in England where I live now. And I agree with you that such class consciousness is ‘in the blood’ – it’s learned of course, but imbibed from birth. However, (1) the multi-millionaire I spoke with was a self-made man, from relatively humble family background, not born into a upper middle class or moneyed family. If anything, this sociological characteristic encouraged him to inflate his ego just as much as those inflated egos based on ‘born to rule’-class consciousness that you speak of.
(2) I suppose all countries have class differentiation (I haven’t been to all other countries), but in Australia, for example most people deny class divisions and are proud that Australia is without the old obsession with British class. And yet, they have class divisions – without class consciousness. Which I see as a form of ‘egalitarian denial’.
My point is that there is more than one road to this overbearing sense of self-entitlement that I detected in my millionaire acquaintance. The other point I’m trying to make is that the power elite is not (as far as I know) drawn from any dominant ethnic/’racial’ group or ‘tribe’, although they come to form, as they gain power, a tribe of sorts based on (1) self-entitlement, and (2) on common interests, like crushing their opposition (trade union movements; environmentalists; anti-capitalists movements, and the Open Society, etc). It is true that a few American politicians are born into the ‘Boston Brahmin’ class, but most seem to come from middle class families with some money behind them, not millionaire families. I could be wrong. Some are Zionists, most bend to Zionist pressure (advertisers; lobbyists) in the arena of the Middle East. However, it has been claimed that the government of Israel disagrees with U.S. policy of regime change in Syria. OK, Obama is no longer talking about regime change, but that could be because of Russia’s intervention which has rendered regime change difficult. So, my point is, Israel prefers to keep Assad rather than have a country in chaos next-door; but in the last 4 years the U.S. has pursued its own policy of regime change. Where is the AngloZionist alliance on this issue?
Now that is my present position. It’s not set in concrete. If you, or anyone, can convince me that the so-called ‘AngloZionists’ have the kind of over-arching influence that Saker, for example, believes, then I’m ready to change my mind. But I need evidence to be convinced. For example, there are Russian and Ukrainian oligarchs, many (maybe most) of them Jews, possibly Zionists in that they support the notion of a Jewish homeland in Palestine. But does that mean that their financial and political behaviours are in line with Zionism or with the government of Israel – or is more the case of personal self-aggrandisement and ego-building? That is the question, for me. The term ‘AngloZionist’ is hardly justified otherwise. ‘Anglo’ may be justified in that the ‘world’ is dominated by the U.S. government and by the U.S. dollar, and the U.S. government is on a mission of empire building.
I entirely agree with you that it is an alliance ‘made in hell’ when it comes to the Middle East and Palestine. But does that alliance apply far beyond that? Maybe it does – in the field of intelligence sharing for example. Also, there may have been some cooperation in regard to Kiev’s shooting down of flight MH-17. But in respect to spreading and imposing of neoliberalism (austerity programs, for example – even such a small developing economy like Trinidad, already cash-strapped, is now going to enter an austerity programme; and Ukraine will, too, if the Nato-ists have their way) – I remain unconvinced. Do the Zionists – as Zionists – have much interest in, or influence over, the Bilderberg world project of neoliberalism? Or is it more the case of billionaires supporting billionaires in the common interest of self-enrichment? I am not convinced. – Gunnar
Good perceptions Gunnar.One of the thought trends I try to watch in myself is using types to look at people. While this is practically necessary as a tool, it must not become a doctrine wherein it is a convenient row of boxes. I diverge…
Your example of the “do you know who I am ?” jerk hits home. Those types gained some “power” by devious and conspiratorial means. Were likely brought up with that ethos, or in youth adopted egocentric self-centeredness, and rejected any egalitarian motives as weak, disadvantageous, and for the suckers. I This morning Press TV had a photo of Bob Corker pig repug blowing out about sanctions on Iran. That magazine good looks, the beltway exact haircut, the facial expression of arrogance and intimidation, made him eligible to be a spokesman for the cabal of hypocrites and liars. A way the muscles around the mouth are set, condescension. I think they can recognize it in each other without speaking.
Good to hear a reference to C. Wright Mills. His bold and insightful writing was essential to us “radicals” in the sixties, with Domhoff, Studs Terkel, and others, trapped in reactionary cesspools like Lubbock, Texs.
and thanks, Saker.
plainsman
Yes Gunnar – excellent.
I argue much with Uncle Bob on occasion but he & you are correct. It is primarily a Class War. Maybe saker should reconsider his terminology:
Uncle Bob 1 on February 03, 2016 · at 10:12 pm UTC
I would argue that the elite’s main ideology is “power and wealth”. And that the use of zionism to help gain it for them is secondary. Its useful for them.And some of their most useful dupes are very attached to it. Hence the inclusion as in “Anglo-Zionist Empire”. But if it ever really got in the way of their “real” ideology,it would go.
The logic of the Saker’s position,shown in this article is beyond question true.Will it stop the questioning? Sadly no. The elite and supporters of Zionism aren’t interested in truth and logic (unless it is “truth and logic” as they see it). But for the rest of us,its great to again read.
How about just the “Cabal”.
Or “Western Crime Syndicate”.
Or “New World Order”?
These terms are exploding in popular usage.
And rightly so as millions awake to the orchestrated nature of mayhem and inequality.
They can be further qualified with friends and acquaintances:
Sociopathic elites and systems organise at the top of hierarchical political and economic structures. They organise over decades and centuries in aristocratic privilege, industrialist and financier backroom deals, in secret societies, in intergenerational elitist families.
Such groups become the kingmakers and puppet masters behind the old thrones and the modern liberal democracies.
Think also the Mafia. The way mafia “families” operate – alliances, deals, secrecy, rituals, code of “honour”.
Thus we have today a shadowy nefarious alliance of US-UK Anglo industrialists, banking elite including extremely wealthy Jewish Zionist families, old Nazi sympathising European aristocracies. This “Syndicate” ( to use the term from the recent Mission Impossible movie that is an octopus like “Spectre” to use term from latest James Bond movie ) allies itself to Wahabist Arab Monarchies and the “deep state” elites in Turkey and Pakistan. It bullies and co-opts elite political groups across the globe, think Phillipines, Latin America, Africa. It subjugates Japan, South Korea, Germany and via the shadowy “Eurogroup” controls the nations of Europe.
All must be subjugated to this NWO of this Crime Syndicate.
Russia, China, Iran, Syria, a few Latin American nations
South Africa to some extent? (Spectre launched a terror attack in Sth Africa in the James Bond movie to bring SA into a surveillance sharing treaty with the NATOists).
Are not fully subjugated.
India walks a fine line but leans strongly East.
Hence the travails of our planetary home.
As readers of the Saker’s blog well know.
Just left field, off planet, for your consideration, please seriously do not scoff.
There really does seem to be vast amounts of evidence that extraterrestrials are involved. Both for good and for ill. Spend some time researching:
Richard Dolan + deep state + UFO
UFO disclosure project
Citizens Hearing on Extraterrestrials engaging the Human Race
Paradigm Research Group
Sirius Disclosure
UFOs and Nukes
John Callahan + FAA + UFO
Robert Jacobs + missile + UFO
Robert Salas + missile + UFO
Lord Admiral Sir Peter Hill-Norton + UFO
Exopolitics + Michael Salla
Operation High Jump + Nazi + Antarctica
Foo Fighters
Secret Space Program
Laura Eisenhower + unity consciousness
Stephen Greer + French govt. (Sarkozy’s govt)
Zero point energy suppression
The list is endless, the evidence overwhelms.
For some good recent UFO footage see the videos on YouTube by “Secure Team 10”.
For Russian PM (may have been president at time) Dimitri Medvedev’s admission that governments are secretly engaged with ETs see him say it:
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=zHCSpm2kepo
The “men in black” documentary he talks about is a serious Russian doco, not Will Smith and co.
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=kR014_jY7po
For those whose religious faith is challenged by the ET presence – look into it, the parallels with aspects of what religions have referred to restricted by their past geocentric cosmologies allows for much theological discourse.
For those who think a UFO -ET coverup too difficult for govts – well it is if you look at the evidence. The fact they lie and use ridicule and death threats (Armstrong and Aldrin) … Is that so unimaginable given what we see at a purely terrestrial level in the work of the Cabal and its secret agencies?
For those who think scientifically, as I did, that the limiting speed of light, and NASA and SETI’s lack of info – mean no ET visitation. See the material on quantum consciousness and supraluminal speed of thought by Stephen Greer and others, the actual evidence for telepathy, the NASA whistleblowers re the Photoshopping out of UFO craft and lunar bases.
Neuroscience evidence is that humiliation and ridicule are the most psychologically painful states of mind.
CIA mind control and MK-Ultra use of ridicule on masses on the UFO topic had been effective for 3 score and 10 years. Time to wake up and have a look for yourself.
This is quite a diversion from the Saker’s column about his chosen terminology, but I have something to add to your comment: the “UFO disclosure movement” has been linked with Rockefeller money, so make of that what you will. It’s worth looking up the “Rockefeller Initiative” and in particular, Laurance Rockefeller’s apparent interest in the UFO phenomenon.
I don’t know whether extra-terrestrial (or extra-dimensional/extra-temporal) intelligent beings have visited our planet, but it seems that the Rockefeller family has been involved in promoting these ideas to the general population; at least, within a certain sub-culture. I was going to say that “they want us to believe that aliens are visiting us), but decided to change the wording, as the “disclosure movement” is a rather niche thing. At the very least, “they” want *some* of us to become believers in alien visitations, and the like.
I remain open-minded and don’t intend to pour scorn on anybody, or to ridicule their ideas.
Which makes more sense: a super intelligent species has so far failed to make contact with the general population of the world due to the machinations and cover ups of governments; or this is another product of cognitive dissonance, a new religion, that simply distracts the subject.
I don’t know Nils.
I have an extremely competent & reliable friend who has described his observation as:
“Well, let me put it this way, on December 28th 1988 (I think) at 23:25, I was in my now unused observatory looking at the sky with the naked eye.
A dark, totally silent, triangular craft with a single light at the front flew at low-level over my garden. I could clearly see the underside had a pattern of touching circles and it seemed to radiate a dull orange glow.
Its motion was so steady that is seemed automatically controlled.
It was just high enough to clear the high voltage pylons.
Liverpool Air Traffic Control said there were no civil or military aircraft in the area.
It was either a US drone or an alien craft.
Very risky if it was a drone.
Anyway, forget about YouTube videos or professional CG artists trying to fool people, look at the quality evidence.
If you want to check one incident in detail, research the Phoenix Lights.
Compare what the governor Fife Symington said at the initial press conference with what he says now.”
Gunnar said /why-i-use-the-term-anglozionist-and-why-its-important/comment-page-1/#comment-205858:
“(2) This attitude is international, global, but rooted in an inflated self-view”
Why do you think it is limited to
““Western Crime Syndicate””
?
Anonymous: By ‘Western crime syndicate’ I assume you are referring to my reference to the Bilderberg Conferences. I mentioned the Bilderberg Conferences (1) as an example of a multi-cultural forum – although I agree with you that it purports to work in the interest of ‘the West’; and (2) in order to highlight my own focus of political interest, namely the spread of the neoliberal political and economic agenda – which is global and driven by a sense of self-entitlement of and by most oligarchs everywhere.
Do the Bilderberg Conferences work for the West only? I honestly don’t know. I suspect, without evidence, that it is the creature of Western oligarchs but with support (tacit or active) from oligarchs globally. It is not so much a conspiracy as a convergence of interests – and the Conferences outline or recommend a cluster of techniques passed down to national governments to have their way globally and crush organised opposition. This part, one could argue, smacks of a conspiracy. But the ‘ideology of self-interest’ is not.
So, my answer to your question is: I don’t think it is limited to the West. Bilderberg is just one of many tools – World Economic Forum, the G7, G20, and so on. It just sounds to me like the Bilderberg Conferences have greater ‘intellectual’ or ‘inspirational’ pretentions. – Gunnar
Re: Judaism and its heresy: OK. there have always been Jews who saw through the basic fallacy of Rabbinical Judaism –not just Freud or Marx.( that of trying to replace the priesthood of a nation state) The big, big elephant in the room is the whole lack of teaching about the genocide that Moses did on the Midianites. Moses as a baby was almost killed by a homicidal pharaoh so the archetypal myth goes ; yet, here is the big question: why, then did he do the same as an old man about to enter “the promised land” when, acting like the pharaoh, he killed all the infant boys of the Midianites ( let us not go into the genocidal rampages of the book of Joshua which follow chronologically). ? The teaching is that G-d did not allow Moses to enter the “promised land” because of this that or the other reason. In truth, Moses was not allowed in because he did not solve His inner conflict of victim/victimiser and until the Jewish people do solve this in the form of what they have created in the Zionist state, they will not enter the “promised land” either.
And, until the human race learns to step out of this oh so addictive power game( victim-victimiser: kill or be killed) we will create hell on earth continually.
How the oligarchy Empire started
http://wakeup-world.com/2016/02/01/the-oiligarchy-how-big-oil-conquered-the-world/?utm_campaign=Wake+Up+World+e-Newsletter&utm_content=Latest+Headlines+inc.+Vaccine+Failures+Continue%3A+The+One-Size-Fits-All+Vaccination+Schedule+is+Not+Safe+for+Every+Child&utm_medium=email&utm_source=getresponse
The question the Saker has yet to address is, What is his problem with Jews?
I can see why someone might have a problem with Bolsheviks, whether Jewish or Russian or Georgian; or with Zionists, whether Jewish or British or American; or with financiers on Wall St. or in the City, whatever their ethnic or religious or national origin; or with Jews who take seriously what Israel Shahak has translated for the benefit of those who don’t know Hebrew.
But this is distinct from having a problem with Jews tout court. The Saker sometimes makes this clear and sometimes blurs the distinction.
The use of “Jew” and “Zionist” as if interchangeable gives the unfortunate impression that the Saker has no problem with Jews qua Jews, well… the problem with the Jews is only because the Jews brought down the Tsar and attacked the Orthodox Church, and the Jews because the Jews established the State of Israel, and the Jews because the Jews are the financiers who profit from the corruption that is capitalism, and the Jews because their religion is exclusive and supremacist, and the Jews because the Jews make such a fuss for political ends over their holocaust as if it was the only one and so we have to call into question the details of what happened (pretty well regardless of the work of scholars) and even wax satirical about it.
It only takes a little discipline to state clearly what you want to say and avoid the misunderstandings that attract the Jew haters you appear happy to welcome to your site (because they are simply exercising free speech, expressing their own opinions, and are not racist at all).
“… the US elite are mostly Anglos and Jews…” “…two groups – Anglos and Jews – hostile to each other” make up the Deep State…
What does it add to the analysis of the workings of the US Deep State to say that it harbours Jews? That it is heavily interested by the Zionist lobby for Israel – yes. But that it harbours Jews? What does this add?
That WASPs retain so much power after more than two centuries and that there are some Jews who have managed to join the WASPs in the elite despite being so despised makes for very interesting history and sociology (as does tracing the history of Italian immigrants and Irish and German etc.).
That the elite, or Deep State, comprises various competing and cooperating interest groups, oil, Wall St., military-industrial, Israel lobby, Saudi lobby etc. makes for very interesting politics.
It should be easy to keep the two apart: the history and sociology one thing; the workings of the elite another, for which the terms Anglos and Jews provide little explanatory power but a miasma of prejudice and hatred which simply gets in the way.
good point.
@”and the Jews because their religion is exclusive and supremacist,”
I think this is the crux of the problem.
It is also the crux of the victim/victimizer issue rasied in a post above.
It seems that teh Zionists, and many Jewish “fellow travelers” of all religions, but an increasing number of those who used to be “secular” Jews, seem to have successfully perfected a way, an argument, to use the eternal victim part of the picture to advance current secular interests and dispossess others. This is the reason for the disease caused by Jews as well as Zionists. This is teh ideology that The Saker asserts grown people have chosen to believe.
Anyone who accepts this line of thinking—and that seems to include, now, most Americans, most French, most Germans, most English, whether Jewish or not—is, IMO, an enemy of truth, or at teh least, a victim of a campaign of coordinating a mass of forked tongues who all chorus the same lies and contribute to the stultifying historical amnesia, and have succeeded in making it taboo to discuss this mystification of history and reality.
There is no question of the realility of the Holocaust. But to the extent that Jews accept it and any early persecutions as justification for any oppression of others, and a pretext for the creation of a racist state, then, yes, I think Jews are a problem. They have a special role in upholding the taboo, and hence, a special responsibilty to help break it. If you aren’t part of the solution, you are part of the problem. Lanzmann explains in teh documentary I saw that his film, Shoah, was **commissioned* by officialdom in Israel. He is pictured enjoying the beach . . . somewhere on teh Israeli coast. . . no trace of consciousness of having no right to be there, or no right to enjoy this beach exclusively, only Jews allowed. No “Shoah” for the Palestians.
Katherine
@”This is the reason for the disease caused by Jews as well as Zionists.”
Just want to clarify that I meant “dis-ease”; perhaps “unease” would have been clearer.
Katherine
Hello Ali, and greetings to all Leninists,
“Workers and Oppressed Peoples and Nations of the World, Unite!”
Now you can ask: against whom? Against Imperialism of course.
In the first half of the 20th century you can say (and one is in line with the majority of historians), Germany was the most aggressive imperialist power, and nazi ideology was the ideological core. (It honours the British nationals partaking in this dispute here that they are very self-critical about their country’s history and the role of British colonialism (“white man’s burden” – R. Kipling) played in history.
After WW II US-imperialism developed to be the chief enemy of the “Workers” and “Oppressed Peoples”.
It’s neither the “Anglos” nor the “Zionists”. Of course there are a lot of Quislings (Quisling was a prominent Norvegian collaborator) in all countries (the atlanticists in Germany, among them the German chancellor Merkel, and Foreign Minister Steinmeier) and religions and even in within the Russian power elite (Gajdar, Jakovlev etc).
So let’s fight US-imperialism! Each one of us according to his personal capabilities.
Finally, just a word to Gunnar:
I am 72 and I do know the difference between juridicial guilt and political and moral guilt, and the obligation arousing from our German history.
I express my sympathy with all commentators of this website.
Otto Kern
DE-37412 Herzberg-die Esperantostadt
There is a clear justification for the term “AngloZionist” based on a preponderance of historical evidence, and The Saker is absolutely correct in using it.
The following scholarly article on the topic has already been posted here, and it should serve as a reminder of the basic facts: https://www.voltairenet.org/article184973.html
“Nazis and Zionists can hate each other to their hearts’ content, but they are still twins.”
Once you review things and fully integrate what the Revisionists have found out you find that, in reality, it’s the Image of National Socialism that is the twin, not the reality. It is quite incredible the number of examples of Zionists behavior being just like what they Say the ‘Nazis’ did rather than the reality.
Re ‘Pre-traumatic Stress” (I agree it’s a brilliant creation by Gillad) At some level the zionists must know that if, suddenly, every American had, beamed directly into their skulls, a download of all the true facts about Israel and the zionists there would be a huge and bloody pogrom.
Hence their fear of violent anti-‘semitism’ – it stems from a fear of being found out and suffering the the consequences. It is based on guilt. Governments, at some level, are faced with trying to avoid a potential (bloody) disaster if the information gets out into common knowledge. Like a ‘to big to fail’ bank the Jews/zionists are a ‘too evil to expose’ situation.
wow – nice piece
I comment on the business of Jews and Anglo-Zionists, but I must, once more, declare my surprised astonishment at the articulate knowledge of so many of this website/blog readers. I read, with amused interest, that someone traces to the Venetians at the court of England, the origin of British imperialism. Personally, I think they would decline the attribution of such responsibility. But I also see Paolo Sarpi mentioned as another culprit.
Now surprise gives way to wonder – setting aside that I possess a copy of his History of the Council of Trent, a bulky and compendious puzzle of the shenanigans occurred during that extended 16th century assembly of notables and quotables.
Back to the Anglo-Zionists and to the Saker’s articulate description. I (almost) agree with the view that the 1% to whom the adjective ‘Zionist’ applies, may have little to do with the Jewish religion. Where I differ, or rather, I add to the description, is that Zionism (by a different name), precedes in time, concept and practice, what is Zionism today. It did not have the name feel, but it elicited, in the European and some early-American intelligentsia, the same distaste, aversion and loathing that many feel today.
There is ample documentation on those who expressed their reasons in writing, starting from Seneca, to Aquinas, Luther, Shakespeare, Diderot, George Washington, Benjamin Franklin, Mencken etc. The list is very, very long.
I have read some of the reasons brought forward by some of the above and I strongly desire to reserve my judgment.
Then I look at our times. Reading on both sides of the issue I am prepared to believe that The Protocols of Zion are a fake invented by the Tzarist regime.
But how about the most recent Yinon plan (1980s) aimed at fomenting internicine wars and the destruction of Middle Eastern countries?
Or the Kalergi plan (the founder of the European Union) and his prediction of a biblical and oceanic invasion of Europe from Asia/Africa, “The (European) man of the future will be of mixed race. Today’s races and classes will disappear owing to the disappearing of space (nations), time, and prejudice. The Eurasian-Negroid race of the future, similar in its outward appearance to the Ancient Egyptians, will replace the diversity of peoples with a diversity of individuals.” (under Jewish leadership. I shorten but that’s the essence of the Kalergi’s vision).
Then I (we) observe the preponderance of Jewish personalities in all the positions of power in America (and Europe), their ownership of audiovisual and printed media, of Hollywood, the latter mother and matrix of imposed top-down ideology, masquerading as popular taste.
Furthermore, discounting the few noteworthy exceptions, 95% of Jews (assuming the statistics true) approve of the invasion of Palestine, the settlers, the slaughters in Gaza etc. The staunchest Administration and Pentagon promoters of the Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya invasions etc. were/are Jewish. So were the key actors in the dissolution of the Soviet Union.
In this scenario, were all the historical personalities who saw a problem with pre-Zionist Zionism blinded by ideology?
Is it irrational to wonder whether it’s all a coincidence? Or to perceive a thread and a trend, suggesting a Talmudic desire for the chosen people to control the world?
And is just raising the question a sufficient reason for acquiring the anthropologically incorrect label of “anti-semite?”
For, if I wrote that the Italians, for example, are politically disorganized, that their Left is a joke and that they are committing ethnic suicide, there would be many Italians wishing to shake my hand in agreement. And no one would even think of calling me anti-Italian.
Which is clearly not the case with the class-cum-ethnic subject body in question.
I look forward to the readers’ views and, should he have time, the Saker’s.
Voltaire 1964 I apologize for garbling the copying and pasting of the second link I provided on Sarpi, the Venetian Party etc. Moderator, I think this will work better:
https://youtu.be/eVal7iDwwD8 I trust W. Tarpley’s historical research and political courage, but if you have Sarpi’s History of the Council of Trent, all the more reason to check out the link, and then maybe re-read Sarpi with a different mindset than the first time time through. Amazement or amusement, either way!
I appreciate your comment, by the way.Lots of good points.
Sorry, forgot to type name and ended up as anonymous by default. Ted
Voltaire 1964: Exactement.
Many have noted that one actually has more latitude within Israel to be critical of Israel than in the USA.
That sys something. Not sure what, but it is relevant.
Katherine
Voltaire 1964: I was interested in reading about the Venetians and the Venetian Party in England and the establishment of a proper banking system in England. Are these the things that you refer to as ‘pre-Zionist’? How do you perceive modern-day (Jewish) Zionism as being connected to the British Venetian Party and the origins of our banking system? It could be that the present-day banks in England have a sizeable Jewish leadership and shareholder component – I don’t know – but are you suggesting that Jews (as a tribe, in Sands’ usage) were behind or part of the Venetians in Britain? Or are you simply saying that the Venetian way of thinking was similar to present-day Zionist thinking – that of establishing economic and political influence at the expense of the indigenous government and people; that there is a parallel or similarity in ideology, but not necessarily a significant Jewish ‘tribal’ physical involvement?
As for ‘a Talmudic desire to control the world’ – (1) I don’t think the Americans would approve of that; they want the U.S. dollar to rule supreme. There may be Jews, even Zionists, at the top of many, if not most, of the big banks in the U.S., but the U.S. ‘administrations’ (as they grandly call themselves) would not tolerate an Israeli take-over of those banks or of the Federal Reserve.
(1) The Yinon plan is interesting and a warning as to what many Zionists would like to happen during the 21st century. However, it is restricted to territorial gains in the Middle East. It does not point to a bigger plan of a Talmudic based desire for world control, territorially. My view is that the Israelis have been cheeky in the past, and various U.S. regimes have let them get away with it; and to some it has looked as if ‘the tail has wagged the dog’ – that Israel has dictated their terms to the U.S. There are some complaints of this in “They Dare to Speak Out: People and Institutions Confront Israel’s Lobby” (1985), by Paul Findley. However, U.S. governments are still, I think, in command, and know their ‘national interest’ (as they, as a power elite, see it), and which they try to impose on other nations.
I think that if there were ever a perceived danger in the White House that Jews or Jewish Zionists inside or outside the U.S. were planning to take political control of the USA, against the power elite’s perceived U.S. national interests, the White House would move against such a danger, plan or plot. In other words, as far as the U.S. power elite is concerned, Israel is, and will remain, subservient to the U.S., not the other way round. The U.S. has experience in how to demolish empires – they demolished the financial basis of the British Empire at Bretton Woods in 1944. The Americans are determined to remain in the driver’s seat. Britain was a close ally in 1944; yet, the President was determined to assert U.S. dollar domination over the sterling. One book I found useful on this topic was volume 3 of Robert Skidelsky’s epic biography, “John Maynard Keynes”; volume 3 is subtitled “Fighting for Britain”, and the Bretton Woods conference opens at chapter 10: “The American way of Business”, pp. 337 onward.
Are you suggesting that the way the Venetians inveigled themselves into British financial and political life could somehow be repeated by Israel in the U.S.? This is not a rhetorical question. I am having a conversation with you and am thinking aloud. – Gunnar
Great article, am glad I read it all.
One caveat to your “diatribe”(!): In my opinion, the West’s “guilt complex” stems not from its failure to “do anything” about Jewish persecution (Douglas Reed indicates that Jews suffered proportionate to their numbers and politics as did others), but because Henry Morganthau, Jr., and his colleagues were so very effective in the “marketing” of the Jewish Holocaust. They had a better publicist than other groups which suffered, and a political/economic benefit from publicizing it. The actions of the British, and some members of the U.N., would be inexplicable without “the Holocaust”.
@ali on February 03, 2016 · at 10:54 pm UTC
“The question the Saker has yet to address is, What is his problem with Jews?”
It is very simple. Recently it was the link posted on this blog from the Haaretz newspaper / if somebody still has this link, please post it here just as a reminder /how the Jews right now around the world living the “best time” in their history. How they are layoff people from work and everybody must to follow up their decision and so on……………..
Day after this link was posted somebody was trying to” iron” this information that it is probably the opinion just of one person representing the Jews.
Then my question is: “Where was the editorial board when this article was approved for the print???????????”
It was obviously meant to assault rest of the population of this earth excluding the Jewish religion people.
In every single religion we have an evil people and we have very kind a considered people, but as the history is speeding up to the WWIII most of the population started to look and search for the answers that who is behind the curtain? Who is making and leading the society to the total world orchestrated chaos.
Well starting with the universities around the world, corporations / board of directors and so on / very lucrative government positions this is just the list to start.
It is not pointing out that these are only Jews, you have to have a look for the all picture and do your own research why Saker is trying to make a point that these hatred obviously is going to be intensified because most of the population of this earth is suffering and suffering very badly. Social balance was totally lost and you can’t build the house till you don’t have a very firm base to put up another floor on the top of the basement because it will simply fell down.
It is very simple.
You appear to be making the mistake the Saker claims to avoid.
@ali on February 04, 2016 · at 1:47 pm UTC
Oh please, this is really childish. Read not just this blog of comments, but the comments form the world too
I’m polite and well brought up, so I’ll assume you know what you meant. From what you’ve written, I’m afraid it’s not at all clear.
@ali on February 04, 2016 · at 6:12 pm UTC
I can see you are polite, but nobody else on this blog is complaining about that what I have wrote is not clear just you.
At the same time I apologize because English is my” fifth” language and not my mother tongue
What comments from the world? is what has me puzzled. That’s all my snarky comment meant. And it’s still not clear to me. It might be your fifth language, or it might just be I’m slow.
I’ll keep this brief. It seems you misuse the term “racism”. There is the total world of the HUMAN SPECIES and spread throughout that world are the many RACES and tribes within the races. Unfortunately, the history of RACISM predates modern man by tens of thousands of years. And a very important item in this dynamic happens to be SKIN COLOR. For some tens of thousands of years it has been so. And inter- tribal divisions have been with us as well.
I would argue, technically, based on precision, that to disparage an “Anglo-Zionist” is not really an act of racism. It smacks of racism–but it is more a pronouncement of a type of tribe or class with a subtext of elitism.
One of the things John Chrysostom argued against was Christians going back to observing Jewish feasts and practices: like attending the synagogue on Saturday and then coming to church on Sunday. Many of the ‘Judiazers’ were of that ilk, preaching that one had to be a Jew before one could be a Christian. Good book here is John Chrysostom and the Jews by Robert L. Wilken (Wipf and Stock 1983)
Saker
“1) We need to start talking freely about the “elephant in the room” and stop fearing reprisals from those who want us to pretend we don’t see it.
2) We need to stop using politically correct euphemisms in the vain hope that those who want us to shut up will accept them. They won’t.”
Very strongly agree.
I noticed that the reference to anti-Semitism being a sin in one of the earlier versions is missing here. I thought it was both accurate and helpful to the discussion, and was sorry to see it had been omitted, for whatever reason.
It is clear from the historical record that the British supported the Zionist project starting before WWI, then really picking up speed in the twenties, both in the political halls of Europe and on the ground in what later became known as Palestine. Long before teh Holocaust the British and Lord Rothschild were encouraging an influx of Jews into Palestine and clandestinely lbuying up property, creating settlements, daming the Jordan River, etc. AFter the Zionists turned on the Brits (in teh forties) with a series of terrorist attacks, teh British more or less walked away from the Palestine “problem,” made insoluble by the intransigence and terrorism and militarism of the Jews and their gangs. The Americans took up the banner as the primary sponsors of Israel, for their own geostrategic reasons, and ever since WW2 and increasingly since the Six-Day War and the Yom Kippur War, it has been well understood that only the Americans can have any real effect on constraining what the Zionists do. And teh Americans let them do whatever they want.
So, I see absolutely nothing wrong with the term ‘AngloZionist.” This is a partnership made in hell that exploits the extermination of Jews in Europe to extend hegemony in teh ME and has succeeded in making any discussion of the actual actions of Israelis/Zionists taboo. We must break that taboo.
I completely agree that the best way to view the Jews is as a tribe. And in the ME now we have the areas that politically were most advanced as of the end of WW1 sandwiched between, basically, two tribal societies: The Israelis and the Saudi Arabians. The atavistic tribal entities must not be allowed to call the shots in the ME or elsewhere.
I just saw a documentary on Claude Lanzmann—I guess this documentary is up for an Oscar in the documentary category. It reminds me of how influential his film, Shoah, was in cementing the concept of the Holocaust as a defensive barrier against any criticism of the state of Israel. I do not give credence to those whose “revisionism” rests on questioning gasing and crematoria. To question these facts is a huge waste of time as they are established. There is a strong historical and documentary record. IMO serious revisionists should be following the lead of Guido Preparata and others in devotiong their energy to excavating the underlying origins of the two world wars and of the Russian Revolution. And the interplay of the Zionist project with imperialists in charge especially in Britain and also successive British governments, depending on which party won and who became prime minister.
A very good introduction to the history of the West’s meddling in and screwing up the MENA is provided by Peter Mansfield’s The Arabs. Not my first mention of this title, but I continue to read and to be amazed at the completeness of the histoircal amnesia surrounding these aspects of 20th-century history , when the facts are right out there to be read by anyone. Which is part of the elephant in the room, taboo aspect of these topics as highlighted by The Saker.
Katherine
What complete evidence is there about the gassing and crematoria? And also how do we know that all those bodies were Jews? Couldn’t they have been Greek Orthodox and other whites who were deemed un desirable?
I for one don’t doubt that Germans gassed, but I wonder if the 6 million number is a fabrication and if who was actually killed was a mixture of ethnic whites.
As usual, Saker, you are right on. “The English speaker world” is just a smoke screen term for the AngloZionist Empire, controlled from the City of London financiers and also Wall Street financiers. Whatever the origins of the financiers, they have no love for the rest of humanity. If Europe does not come to its senses and breaks away, we are in for a horrible time. And how long can Russia hold out? Are there enough Russians in their leadership to keep up the fight when Putin is gone? And by the way, your book is a cornucopia of interesting articles from your blog, some of which I didn’t have before. I highly recommend it!
1. I generally object the term Anglo-Zionism, I simply prefer US-Imperialism. That there are special links with the Echelon countries doesn’t destroy my argument.
2. In the past New Zealand often objected US-policy and with respect to the Asian Infrastructure Bank and the Asian Development Bank even Britain and Australia left US alone.
You underestimate the role of Germany in its cooperation with America against Russia though there are strong economic interests of German energy trusts to normalize the relations with Russia.
3. But much more worrying is the use of the word Zionism in this context:
4. The persecution of Jews is mainly a European Christian “merit”, and during the last 4 hundred years protestants were most prominent. Luther spoke about the annihalation of Jews and the German Kaiser William II spoke about gassing them.
5. In the Muslim world Jews were discriminated but not killed (if one neglects the killing of the Medina Jews in the times of Muhammad).
6. In the Buddhist and Hindu world there was no persecution. So you are wrong when you say Jews were persecuted at any time everywhere.
7. It is not the task of Non-Jews to define who is a Jew.
8. Why is Arab nationalism progressive and Jewish nationalism reactionary?
9. Why didn’t the Arab countries accept the partition of the British protectorate in 1948, and stopped by annexation the founding of an Arab Palestine. Molotov, then Soviet Foreign Secretary tried to convince the Arabs, but failed.
10. Israel has about the same size as the German Bundesland Hesse and about the same number of inhabitants (6-7 millions, among them 20% Arabs and 1 million Russian Jews, whom Putin regards as lost children of Russia and not as traitors as the Communists did).
11. As long as gay Palestinians have to flee to Israel there is no sense in founding another reactionary Arab state. It would be better if the Palestinians fight to become citizens of Israel with equal rights and obligations.
12. Why don’t you speak of an Anglo-Saudi-Empire?
13.Though I like very much your analyses, I as a German Non-Jew feel bitter when reading this term Anglo-Zionism.
Still, thanks for the information on your website
Otto Kern
DE-37412 Herzberg-the Esperanto city
Otto Kern: I like your 12th question, “Why don’t you speak of an Anglo-Saudi Empire?” I’m not defending its usage, but yours is a good rhetorical question. After 9/11 the Bin Laden family is said to have secretly been flown out of the U.S. A little strange, considering they could have provided the American security people with a character ‘profile’ of Osama.
As for statement 7: Shlomo Sands, who is a Jew, set out a definition by concluding that Jews are a ‘tribe’. Do you think we Gentiles are not permitted to discuss his book and give our reasons for agreeing/disagreeing with him? – My point is that the arrival at such definitions as what a ‘Jew’ is may be a cooperative venture between various factions of Jews and various factions of Gentiles. After lengthy debates, we may have to agree to disagree, though. But we live in one world, so why not work together on definitions?
Finally, don’t feel bitter. I don’t know how old you are, but I would suggest that neither you nor I were in any way responsible for the Holocaust – if that is what you are referring to. I don’t believe ‘sin’ is genetically transmitted. As for the term ‘AngloZionism’, it is a vexed question, but having discussed it on this thread and thought about it, I’m moving slowly towards a firm rejection of the term because the expression is so vague that it can mean whatever anyone wants it to mean. – Gunnar
I make a distinction between Israeli government behaviour towards the Palestinians and the unholy alliance between ‘Anglos’ and ‘Jews’ as regards the creation of a new world order – which is not really all that new, it is a regressive step to earlier times when landowners and industrialists ruled unchallenged. The former, the Israeli government actions and attitudes – sometimes referred to ‘Nazi-Zionism’ – is, I think, mainly based on a psychological mechanism, that of ‘acting-out’, which is consists of visiting upon others the brutality meted out to one’s kith and kin in earlier times. It is an unconscious mechanism, although I suppose at some stage, in the political arena, it becomes semi-conscious and enjoyable to the perpetrators. And it becomes inter-generational – that’s the sad thing. I don’t think the ‘Anglos’ share any of this with the Israeli government; if anything, they probably finds it slightly embarrassing – not because the ‘Anglo’ power elite has much of a conscience, but because it so obviously feeds anti-‘Jewish sentiments globally.
So, that is one thing: Israeli acting-out their own history in contemporary Middle-East and the Western elites standing by and trying to stop the Secretary-General of the United Nations express his outrage. The only link that I see between the Israeli government behaviour and the establishment of a new world order is the more ‘human’ characteristic of arrogance and the truism that ‘power corrupts’.
Ted makes the point (If I’ve understood him correctly) that the term ‘AngloZionism’ has emotive value, a resonating power, even if, as he seems to say, it may not be a strictly scientific or sociologically accurate term. All I can say is, ‘Yes, the term may resonate in some quarters but it may alienate in other quarters – and that is the problem – apart from the term being inaccurate.
But ‘acting-out’ may cut both ways. Those who feel ‘set upon’ by ‘the Jews’ may also be acting-out what they perceive (correctly in many cases) as Israeli bullying, and convert their victimhood into strong anti-‘AngloZionist’ sentiments.
I suppose what I’m trying to say is that using the term ‘AngloZionism’ can have unintended consequences. It may make it easier for new contributors to this thread to dismiss the more central thesis of the existence of multi-cultural power elites that share a certain ethos of personal self-entitlement and divert attention from this international phenomenon by narrowing our struggle down to an enemy that is somehow ‘national’, sectarian, or tribal.
I found teranam13’s comment interesting – the suggestion that aspects of the story of Moses and the Midianites being suppressed and ‘forgotten’ and then re-enacted against the Palestinians in modern times. Mythological history twisted in the hands of politicians. In the end, though, Ali has it right, ‘AngloZionism’ has little explanatory power. And yet, Katherine is right, too; there is ‘a partnership made in hell’ – but the partnership applies (I think) in limited arenas of conflict, not necessarily across the board of global neoliberalism empire building. All the same, I have found Saker’s thesis that the neoliberal elites have their origin and are inspired by the ideology of Trotskyism interesting. One day Saker may want to expand on this idea.
The Saker has hinted that something happened – he witnessed, as it were – an example of Israeli government mendacity during the Kosovo war. He won’t say exactly what the incident was, because he needs to protect his sources. However, incidents like this do not necessarily make for an entirely valid world view. That, incidentally, applies to my impression of the multi-millionaire I met and described in my earlier post. I admit that I could be wrong, and that I’m using too much individualistic psychology to explain international and political ‘partnerships made in hell’. The real world is very complex.
It is our duty not to project the brutality we see perpetrated on group that we identify with onto ‘AngloZionists’ or even ‘Israel-as a-racist-state’, but to come to grips with, and oppose, an ideology and a multi-cultural mind-set deeply embedded in individualism and egoism. Behind the super-rich and their ‘bling’ of yachts and country estates and private jets, there is a neurosis of ‘the small man’-syndrome, an inferiority complex, which these elites try to repress, deny, and negate by living lives in a psychologically defensive state of pollyannish denial. These people can be successfully opposed. But most of us have a little grain of the same arrogance, and, as someone said, democracy is best defended via ‘eternal vigilance’. And sometimes we should remember that part of our enemy is within.
Gunnar, you say “All I can say is, ‘Yes, the term may resonate in some quarters but it may alienate in other quarters – and that is the problem – apart from the term being inaccurate.”
That is a misunderstanding of what I intended to communicate. I don’t think the term “Anglo-Zionist” is inaccurate. I think it is very accurate in the sense that it focuses on a particularly vicious psychological trap that the international power elites employ, and that too many people of good will are terrified of confronting. Until they realize how effective it is in empowering their elitist enemy and debilitating themselves, and become more self-conscious of their fearful aversion to it’s accuracy, very true, it will not “resonate” with them.
Are those five syllables complete, in covering all aspects of the Empire? Of course not! However those five syllables that stir fear in some and determination in others (to disable the vicious trap that Jews themselves are caught up in–most of them are victims of it, along with the rest of humanity….) accomplish something important through that specific focus on a present day MAJOR flank in the fight that the more general terms “international power elite” falls very short of, by skirting the reality of the existence of this vicious victim-ology: the cyclical trap of Nazi aggressor-Jewish victim-Zionist Jewish Aggressor tool of Empire- finally victimizing the majority of humanity! All orchestrated by the world Anglo-Zionist (accuracy!!) oligarchy, which was more prominently Anglo-Nazi eighty years ago. And still is, if you pull off this mask.
Is it the only trick in their oligarchical bag of tricks? Hardly. But unless it is gummed up by lovers of freedom and justice, (and as I have indicated, some Jews ARE more capable of seeing to the depths of this trap set using them, and do resist it…….) a vulnerable enemy flank is being neglected. I’d rather alienate some potential recruits to the anti-Empire alliance that just can’t and won’t “get it” , than see the vulnerability of that flank go unexploited. The purpose of this fight is victory for ALL of humanity (including Jews) and defeat of the Empire as a rotten system of genocide and enslavement of humanity. I know you’d like to attract and recruit everyone and alienate no one. Wouldn’t perfect clarity and unity of humanity across the board be wonderful!? Obviously that is not realistic. It doesn’t even exist here.
So,that’s the basis of my agreement with the term. This is what ali and others are not recognizing, in their insistence that the term unfairly attacks Jews. No it doesn’t. What they are saying unfairly maintains the trap the oligarchy has set for the Jews and all of us with this sick cycle of persecution and victim-ology, and victims becoming persecutors, ad infinitum. It’s like the cycle of abuse within a permanently dysfunctional family of Man, with the abused children growing up to be abusing adults, over and over again. If I were a Jew, I would deeply resent being imprisoned in such a psychotic matrix as the Anglo-Zionists have concocted. And I would be seeking to break out of it, and not stay put. I kind of like Israel Shamir. http://www.israelshamir.net
He even posted a comment here, once. I wish he’d weigh in on this topic, since as a Russian Jew and citizen of Israel, he’s probably the most qualified on this subject.
TED: your post has helped me understand your line of thinking, and I think it’s worth pursuing. If I have understood you correctly, in defence of the use of the concept ‘AngloZionism’, you are saying that the oligarchy (do you mean a Western or a world oligarchy, and do you by oligarchy also mean the hangers-on, namely the rank-and-file political power elites?) has, intentionally or sociologically, set a trap for the Jews and the rest of us. The trap has to do with Jews regarding themselves as the never-ending victims of the Shoah and of discrimination everywhere in the world, and that this sense of victimhood blinds them from realising the racist policies of the Israeli governments over the years. You also seem to think that we Gentiles have tended to fall into this trap by sympathising with the fate of the Jews to the detriment of formation of a Palestinian nation.
I agree with you that the trauma of Shoah has affected the way Jews (and Zionists in particular) see the Gentile world – how could it not – and that they need to, not forget the Shoah – how could they? How could we? – but come to realise or acknowledge what they are doing (1) to the Palestinians, and (2) in the Middle East and, maybe, in international politics beyond the Middle East. So far we agree, is dreadful.
I would like understand the nature of this trap that you mention. Is it intentionally set by others – a power elite of some kind; or is it a simply an unfortunate psychological-sociological-political – you say ‘psychotic’ – by-product of the world order as it has existed during the 20th century (and earlier)? In other words, is the trap an intentional thing or is it, as it were, an intervening variable (an explanatory linking term) in a sociological account of what has been happening in the political world over many decades? You do say that the ‘AngloZionists have concocted’ this situation or state of mind, so it sounds deliberate; but it that what you meant to convey?
The power elite who has set up, or set the stage for, this situation and who are promulgating AngloZionism as an ideology, need to be looked at closely. Is it mainly an ‘Anglo’ elite that is using Zionists for its own political, hegemonic purposes or is the misuse of the Shoah a predominantly Zionist method of manipulating their fellow Jews and the Anglo/the West’s power elite?
Either way, it should be resisted, as you say. But we return to the concept of ‘AngloZionism’ – what it means, what it refers to. If it refers to a real political entity, a defined ‘thing’ like C. Wright Mills’ ‘power elite’, or whether ‘AngloZionism’ is meant as a helpful construct (what in the methodology of scientific is called) an intervening variable – a bit like what Emile Durkheim did when he posited the ‘anomic society’ as effecting anomic-type suicide – well, this is part of my question.
If it is the latter, a less tendentious term would be preferable because of its political overtones and racial/tribal undertones. If it is the former, the ‘thing’ needs definition.
It should be resisted, yes, but first we should be clear as to what it is that we are resisting. Ted feels that the notion of a power elite is too vague, its boundaries too woolly; he (and many others on this thread, including The Saker) feels that the concept of ‘AngloZionism’ provides a more precise and better targeted ‘enemy’ or adversary. As I’ve said before, in the Middle East, there certainly is an AngloZionist alliance (with hiccups and exceptions); but the challenge is to demonstrate such a close alliance in other, or most, other theatres of political strife – and especially (my little bugbear) in the imposition of neoliberal policies and the anti-humanist neoliberal mind-set that is being spread globally, using the American dollar as a lever. – Gunnar
Ted (and others): By coincidence, after I’d posted by latest ‘invective’, I began reading a book by Robert Barsky called “Noam Chomsky: A Life of Dissent” (1997), about a Jewish organisation called Avukah. Someone called Norman Espstein is quoted as saying:
“Avukah, despite its good intensions, contributed to Zionist mythology – for example, that Jewish immigration to Palestine would ‘liberate’ the ‘Arab massess’ and that ‘the Jews who come to dot displace the Arabs’. In fact, the Jews bought the land and ‘liberated’ them into unemployment, a result amplified by the policy of favouring employment of Jews over Arabs in Jewish enterprises” (20 Apr. 1995). Chomsky concurs that he Avukah position, which is the 1940s he would have agreed with, is overenthusiastic – “to put it mildly”. Nevertheless, he continues, he am pretty sure I would have realised that by the time I started speaking out publically on th matter in the ’60s. In retrospect, I’m surprised at how much of the mythology I believed back in the ’40s, including my failure to comprehend the racist elements in such matters as the ‘Jewish labour’ slogan (18 May 1995). Since Chomsky was between twelve and twenty-two years old in the 1940s, it is perhaps not surprising that all of the perspectives on Zionist mythology were not then evident to him” (p. 62).
Now, this illustrates Ted’s and Katherine’s point that there was (and is) a Zionist ‘mythology’ and ideology that sounded convincing (and still does) to many progressive Jews. The quote does not resolve the question where that ideology originated.
But my main point is this: even if someone had, in the name of consciousness raising, stood up amongst the Avukah members and expressed the opinion that the source of the mythology was an AngloZionist entity, or that the mythology was an expression of AngloZionist ideology or mind-set, would it have done any good? I don’t know (I wasn’t there, obviously), but I suggest that the members would not have believed it, and that they would simply have become defensive and cross. In other words, I believe that the label ‘AngloZionist’, far from enlightening either Jews or Gentiles, simply antagonise most people. Most people who come cross this website/blog by chance (as it were; I strayed upon it because I was interested in events in Ukraine in 2013-2014), will simply dismiss the thread as unconvincing and misguided. The term may be satisfying to some, but unless the concept becomes ‘evidence based’ (as they say here in Britain), I’d suggest most people will turn away. Which is a pity, because The Saker is about much more than an unfortunate and counter-productive term. – Gunnar
Ted: sorry – re-reading my last paragraph, I realise that what I should have said was: “Even if someone had … stood up amongst the Avukah members and expressed the opinion that the role of the victim-hood of Jews was a hammed-up trap, set by an Anglo-dominated power elite in order to further their own agenda of world domination, would any of the Avukah members have believed that person?” Even Chomsky would probably not have believed it. They would have replied, “We Jews have suffered – that is not an invention, it is a fact. How can you say – how do you know – that the Anglo (or AngloZionist) power elite is trying to dupe us, using our movement for its own ends? We don’t think we are being used by anyone”.
So they would have rejected the notion that they were enacting a trap. And I think this applies today, as well. We would have a hard time, Ted, convincing Jews generally, and Zionist Jews in particular, that their unwavering defence of Israel’s government policies in the Middle East, and their wish for a ‘Greater Israel’, and their government’s (possible) desire to have a decisive input into the nature of the neoliberal ‘new world order’, are part and parcel of a psychological trap set by outsiders based on an exaggerated and hammed-up notion of victimhood. On the contrary, they would regard all these policies and desires as home-spun, arising out of Jewish and/or Israeli history and currently based on Israeli government-perceived national self-interest: the protection of Israel. Whether they would agree with these government perceptions and policies is another thing – some would, some wouldn’t – but we would have a hard time convincing them that they were being manipulated psychologically and politically by Gentiles.
And I don’t believe it either. And if only a small minority of people are prepared to believe, then I think we need to temper our language to make a persuasive case, and the construct ‘AngloZionism’ does not meet that requirement.
I think The Saker is right that there is an element of ‘pre-traumatic stress disorder’. If so, this adds to the problem of convincing Jews of your case. And if I (a Gentile) am skeptical, they are also likely to be skeptical. – Gunnar
Once more your thoughts underscore an outstanding understanding of the root problems of our time. I would go even further and say that understanding your point on the cultural and political semantics of the word “anglo-zionist” is the intellectual litmus test of all freedom fighters and justice seekers at this specific time in history.
Keep it up comrade Saker.
What the Saker says surely won’t do.
He wants to defend “Anglo-Zionist”. The first term is the less accurate. The combination, I think, serves his purposes, and his purposes are justifiable. It’s the second term has caused him problems. It needn’t.
The problems arise because he insists on using “Jews” for “Zionists” surprisingly often.
This article is to explain why he uses “Zionist”. Yet he spends most of it explaining why it is okay to criticise Jewish people like anyone else and Judaism like any other religion – all true, but beside the point.
He then launches in with “the elite” or the “Deep State” is made up of “Anglos and Jews”. Er…that would perhaps explain “Anglo-Jewish”, but not “Anglo-Zionist”. The fact that there are Jews in the Deep State is not relevant to anything the Saker purports to be talking about. That there are Zionists is.
The reflex reversion to “Jews” is what causes the problems.
Similarly, as has been pointed out, with episodes from history that have little to do with Zionism, This is not directly to do with this article, but helps explain the unease by showing a pattern.
The Saker has said that the Jews launched a genocidal attack on the Orthodox Church in Russia. There is an interesting question why so many Jews in the Russian Empire were revolutionaries by the turn of the 20th century and equally interesting why most were not, given their circumstances. From the fact that many Jews were revolutionaries, and some were Bolsheviks and took positions of power in the Bolshevik regime, it does not follow that it provides an accurate explanation of events to say that “the Jews” launched an attack on the Church. The explanatory term is “Bolsheviks”. Yet the Saker feels comfortable talking about the Jews trying to destroy Mother Russia (even while saying helpfully “not all Jews!).
This has the hallmark of the prejudice and bigotry that is rightly condemned as Jew hatred. That is certainly how very many of the Saker’s readers approvingly interpret it. Yet, as far as I can see, it is not at all what the Saker is about.
I can’t explain why he persists in this easily rectified mistake.
Ok Saker, your term AngloZionists seems to be a little misplaced.
How about calling them AngloAmericanista’s instead. This references both the UK and America, and makes it clear you are not talking about the run of the mill AngloAmericans, but rather the AngloAmerican elite with snotty aspirations of ruling this planet.
Then you could say things like ‘the AngloAmericanista’s, together with their inseparable Zionists, are …’ – which is a perfectly true, politically correct statement so it will attract less noise than the AngloZionist term.
As an aside, not all Muslim’s are ISIS Islamists, proof of this is the fact that the ISIS and non ISIS Muslims are always killing each other. On the other hand, there is no evidence of Zionist and non Zionist Jews killing each other, which leads one to conclude that all Jews are actually Zionists.
.
gT
A very odd requirement! A Jew can only be deemed anti-Zionist if they kill a Zionist! Does that entail that Jews who are pacifists are condemned to be Zionists?
Yes.
It is a good and courageous article. I would like to add that many Zionists are not Jews but WASP. Rev.Blackstone and Louis Brandeis were early supporters of Zionism even before Herzel. They were considering Israel’s restoration as mandatory for the return of the Christ and the establishment of his kingdom. The suffering of the Jews in Russia and in Europe was instrumental for the restoration of Israel. The jewish elite had perceived how these two things could be used to help them achieve their objective to conquer the whole word. (job almost done)
Those who are managing the Empire of Chaos are probably very cynical and skeptical people. Paranoia is their tool to get the Jews together against the Gentiles who should always remember how bad the have behaved towards the Jews. Nobody cares about the palestinians who are slaughtered everyday because they are nobody.
I am convinced that most Jews do not realized the evil nature of those running the show, they don’t care much, for that Empire excepted for the subsidies. They have been brainwashed, they are the “choosen” and are ready to fight anyone criticizing the liars, the thieves and muderers running the Empire.
Should Israel had been conceived as a new Athen from where the jewish intelligentsia would have enlighted the world, we would not have any problem today but that was not the choice It was decided to start an eternal war against the Arabs, some sort of genocide to get a country where they could take refuge after having looted too much the country where they were born.
There is a jewish question. They are so involved in the world politics, media, finance, etc… to be ignored and when things are becoming bad, they should not washed their hands for they are responsible of the world’s situation.
@Jean de Peyrelongue on February 04, 2016 · at 2:25 pm UTC
Thank you, incredibly accurate description of the world situation we are in right now
@jean
Excellent, thanks for reminding us of Blackstone the top christian zionist who actually predated all the herzlian ones.
Apparently Herzl, would have settled for Uganda until Blackstone convinced him to go for Palestine. All this because he believed it would hasten the return of the Messiah….Or a person calling himself the Messiah.
The British “royal family” are said to be actually Rothschilds! They surely do look like the Rothschilds – Jacob and Lionel particularly.
More importantly, if you read “The Venetian Conspiracy.” by Webster Tarpley you will understand that they are actually descended from the Black Guelphs who were banksters of Venice.
It is a MOST interesting read. It was those bankers who ruined all of Europe and, for thaat matter most of the World, and brought about the Dark Ages and the Black Death.
They did what they are doing now – withdrew the currency and starved the population! They were intimately connected with Ghengis Kahn and the Black Death seems to have been started by the destruction he wrought in China – and everywhere he went. I believe that those Mongols and the Jewish Khazars are the same people. Also, that “The Sea People” were the Phoenicians who became the Venetians – and they were probably originally the Habiru who were the traders with donkey caravans who ruined Babylon – and everywhere else they went.
“The Babylonian Woe.” by David Astle is really worth reading ASAP! And The Controversy of Zion.” by Douglas Reed – a GREAT BOOK.
There is a new and fascinating book by Ashraf Ezzat called “Egypt Knew No Pharoahs nor Israelites.” It has been proven archaeologists, that the SEMITIC Jews originated in Yemen and never ever inhabited either Judea or the ancient kingdom of Israel! Not ever.
Furthermore, Christianity was the religion of Egypt! “IUSA the KRST was born in a stable on the 25th. December of a Virgin called IsisMery, He taught in the Temple at age 12 and was baptised at age 30 by Anup the Baptiser – who was beheaded. He had 12 companions, he walked on water, healed the sick and raised the dead and he was crucified, died and was buried in a tomb of rock (such as a pyramid.) He was resurrected – naturally.”
It is all to be found in the Pyramid Texts and the Egyptian Book of the Dead!
Read “Christ in Egypt.” by DM Murdock – a great scholar.
http://www.sott.net/article/233230-Senior-Israeli-archaeologist-casts doubt on
@Anonimous
I think I get it as a critics of the peddled “popular beliefs”, hence I would like to add, that since the “advent” of Israel there were many digs/searches for “proof of Jewish history”, which proved to the contrary. Among other things that “sea people” were Greeks, who were far more advanced than the “others around them” and that Phoenician alphabet was actually borrowed from them and not the other way around.
@Anonymous
One more thing,
Just because the early Christians were centered in Alexandria, it did not mean that they were Egyptians. Alexandria from the time of establishment by Alexander the Great was a Greek City and the biggest “science and religious center for Christianity”.
I was going to tell you how much I enjoyed this, but then I thought … perhaps it’s meant to be serious…?
They are not responsible people! They are completely undeveloped spiritually and morally. They literally do not understand what is good and what if bad or what is right or what is wrong. They are materialists, plain and simple. Judaism is not a religion at all. It is a materialistic political CULT, and nothing more, and the ordinay person born into it is brainwashed most cruelly from birth to believe that all the rest of mankind hates them – for no reason at all!
This has been going on for thousands of years. The parents, particularly the mothers, chant to their poor new born babies brainwashing them literally, to fear and hate AL THE REST OF MANKIND!
They do this generation after generation – not intelligent enough to realise that they are abusing pshychologically, most cruelly, making them tense and fearful and therefore aggressive.
It has been going on since the time of the “sinister Levites” taking control of them when they told them that they could worship only one god whom they call Yahweh – but they destroyed Yahweh’s wife! Her name was Asherah (the local version of Astarte). “They took her and smashed her and burnt her fine to powder and threw her away in the Hebron river.” VERY vindictive indeed they were towards Mother Nature – and STILL ARE!
That seems to be the origin of the contempt for Nature and the Feminine. “Feminism” is so tterly ridiculous – it is making women more masculine. It could hardly be more anti the feminine!
Douglas Reed in “The Controversy of Zion.” said that if ever The Magna Carta – “the greatest gift of the English people to humanity” and habeus corpus was destroyed or taken from us, we should know that we have lost,
It has been taken from the American people and they are constantly threatening it in England now.
He wrote the wonderful book in about 1952 and it lay in his wardrobe in Durban in South Africa until just a few years ago. It is available on line, We all need to read it.
I’m curious about what you said about the femenine. You see, I’ve noticed it to. Abrahamic religions seem to hate women to ridiculous extents. I’ve seen no religion that despises the femenine as much as them. Calling it dirty, making its very notion sinful. I was really struck by that fact. Could you offer a deeper insight on it?
Also, you seem to know what you are talking about. Were you raised into a jewish household, or do you know maybe someone who was and could offer us an inside look on this matter? We always know of the jews by people who talks about them, but almost never its by the jews themselves.
You are still somewhat confused in your global outlook. Go and watch The Greatest Story Never Told and related works. Feel the scales fall from your eyes and never look back. Know your enemy and know what’s in store in the coming years.
I think many who object to the term “Anglo-Zionist” are reading too much into the term. I see the term as descriptive only – and independent of each constituent term. As such, it should NOT be confused with historical, ethnic, or religious matters. To me, it is simply a combination of:
Anglo POWER: British Empire -> American Hegemony -> “5 eyes”
– and –
Zionist IDEOLOGY (which is not based on any single religion): A new form of ‘manifest destiny’ that underlies a belief system that unites the ruling cabal. What ever Zionism was 30 years or 100 years ago has been co-opted by the neocons – blame them, not Saker. It’s core tenet is ‘exceptionalism’ – inherent cultural superiority.
Many who object to “Anglo-Zionist” might be more accepting if it is used with “neo-Aristocracy” instead of “EMPIRE”. That makes it clear that it is descriptive of the “power-elite”.
And there are other good reasons to prefer “neo-Aristocracy” over “Empire” for most usage. “Empire” denotes central control and doesn’t capture the international and overwhelmingly class-oriented nature of Anglo-Zionist governance. Many now talk of our current social system as ‘neo-feudal’, in which cultural exceptionalism and wealth, together represent a modern form of the divine right of kings.
Also “Empire” traditionally expands by conquering territory, while the “neo-Aristocracy” expands by co-opting elites.
“collective guilt” = Original Sin
Saker : “Okay, fine – let those who feel guilty feel guilty (even if I personally don’t believe in collective guilt). But we cannot allow them to try to silence those of us who strongly feel that we are guilty of absolutely nothing!”
Stuart : Our ‘Separation from God’ or “collective guilt” are one and the same!
Ergo, in the Desert of our Silence, our “collective guilt” necessitated God to develop from within God, A Spirit of GoD, that is both God and Not God, so that we may have a relationship with God, in the Desert of our Silence.
Saker: “I reject all three of these assumptions because I believe that God created all humans with the same purpose and that we are all “brothers in Adam”, that we all equally share the image (eternal and inherent potential for perfection) of God (as opposed to our likeness to Him, which is our temporary and changing individual condition).”
The word “create” as in “God created all humans” is unfortunate; humans are made or manufactured from stuff that the mother eats, thus your ear might have been a chocolate sundae in substance before becoming your birth ear.
A bit of Divine Logic:
God can only Create The Eternal.
The human body is not eternal.
Ergo, God did not create humans.
Saker : “that we all equally share the image (eternal and inherent potential for perfection) of God (as opposed to our likeness to Him, which is our temporary and changing individual condition).”
An ‘image’ is something perceived not known, and God has only pure knowledge that never changes – thus, God has no ‘image’ that can be known or shared in.
Saker: “Our likeness to Him, which is our temporary and changing individual condition”.
Our Likeness to God is permanent and never changing, since God is permanent and never changing, any likeness we might share is also Godlike, permanent and never changing.
Superb series
The “German Question”
Coercive Engineered Migration: Zionism’s War on Europe (Part 6 of an 11 Part Series)
January 31st, 2016 by Gearóid Ó Colmáin
The Balkanisation of Europe: Neo-Prometheism and Neo-Ottomanism
Coercive Engineered Migration: Zionism’s War on Europe (Part 5 of an 11 Part Series)
January 27th, 2016 by Gearóid Ó Colmáin
Rothschild’s “Slaughter Ships”
Coercive Engineered Migration: Zionism’s War on Europe (Part 4 of an 11 Part Series)
January 24th, 2016 by Gearóid Ó Colmáin
Barnett’s Five Flows of Globalisation
Coercive Engineered Migration: Zionism’s War on Europe (Part 3 of an 11 Part Series)
January 21st, 2016 by Gearóid Ó Colmáin
The Weaponisation of the Refugee
Coercive Engineered Migration: Zionism’s War on Europe (Part 2 of an 11 Part Series)
January 20th, 2016 by Gearóid Ó Colmáin
Coercive Engineered Migration: Zionism’s War on Europe (Part 1 of an 11 part series)
http://dissidentvoice.org/2016/01/coercive-engineered-migration-zionisms-war-on-europe/
January 16th, 2016 by Gearóid Ó Colmáin
G’day,
Although my views have been discarded previously I provide a response since the Saker has asked for same.
This blog seems predicated upon the basis that Jews (and Russians) were victimised by nasty “Nazis”. They weren’t. Stalin was about to invade Germany (a small and easily overrun country compared to the Soviet Union and the nations Stalin’s Red Army had already invaded and occupied by June 1941.) when Hitler launched operation Barbarossa. See eg: http://abundanthope.net/pages/Political_Information_43/Did-Adolf-Hitler-Save-Europe-From-Communism.shtml
As regards the “perfidious” Germans murdering SIX MILLION Jews, that Judaic propaganda was debunked when the official German camp records taken and concealed in Moscow by the Red Army until the collapse of the Soviet Union were released in 1990. Those records evidence that ONLY 173,000 Jews were EVER sent to Auschwitz. It was therefore a physically impossibility for the Germans to have murdered FOUR million, or 1.5 million or any more that 173,000 Jews there. In fact the records evidence that 58,240 Jews died from typhus, 2,064 Jews died of other natural causes, 117 were executed and 100, 743 were transferred elsewhere. About 12,000 Jews were left in Auschwitz when the Red army arrived. Many of those remaining Jews were killed by Polish guards placed there by the Red Army. See eg: Official German Record of all Prisoners in Auschwitz Concentration Camp from May of 1940 through December of 1944 – http://abundanthope.net/pages/Political_Information_43/Official-German-Record-of-Prisoners-in-Auschwitz-Concentration-Camp-May-1940-through-December-1944.shtml Alternatively see: http://thegreateststorynevertold.tv/official-german-record-prisoners-auschwitz-concentration-camp-may-1940-december-1944/
For further evidence of the HoloHoax see: International Red Cross Report Confirms the Holocaust of Six Million Jews is a Hoax : http://renegadetribune.com/international-red-cross-report-confirms-holocaust-six-million-jews-hoax
/
Incidentally, National Socialists never referred to themselves as “Nazis”. that pejorative term was coined by Jews in March 1933 when they declared war on Germany and sought to starve Germans with sanctions and boycotts, a habit they have used extensively ever since to destroy nations that refuse to accept Jew bankster control of their money creation and supply. See eg:
The Jewish Declaration of War on Nazi Germany: The Economic Boycott of 1933. See: http://abundanthope.net/pages/Political_Information_43/The-Jewish-Declaration-of-War-on-Nazi-Germany-The-Economic-Boycott-of-1933.shtml
WORLD WAR II The JEWS Declared War – AGAINST Germany! NOT the Other Way Around! See: http://abundanthope.net/pages/Political_Information_43/WORLD-WAR-II-The-JEWS-Declared-War—AGAINST-Germany-NOT-the-Other-Way-Around.shtml
The actual start of the Second World War, according to uncensored history, did not occur on September 1st, 1939 with the invasion by the Germans into Poland, but rather, on the 24th of March1933, with the first of the following 58 declarations of war against Germany commenced. Indeed, the very first worldwide declaration of war was the one published in the British Daily Express of the 24th March, 1933. And here now the complete historical list of all of the declarations of war against Germany during the 2nd World War, 1939-1945.
58 Declarations of War against Germany:
* 1.) March 24, 1933 – The Jews declare war on Germany (in the British newspaper ‘Daily Express’:) “Judea Declares was on Germany” – This was the first of three Jewish declarations of war, which obviously were not directed against any ‘Nazis’, but against the whole of Germany! These facts are always hidden and censored in public histories.
2) September 1, 1939 – Poland declares war on Germany
3) September 3, 1939 – Britain declares war on Germany
4) September 3, 1939 – Australia declared war on Germany
5.) September 3, 1939 – New Zealand.
6) September 3, 1939 – France
7) September 6, 1939 – Union of South Africa
8) September 10, 1939 – Canada
9) April 9, 1940 – Norway declared war on Germany
10) April 9, 1940 – Denmark
11) May 10, 1940 – the Netherlands
12.) May 10, 1940 – Belgium
13.) May 10, 1940 – Luxembourg
14.) April 6, 1941 – Yugoslavia declared war on Germany
15) April 6 1941 – Greece …. Plus some 35 others. “Has anything comparable ever happened?
Has there ever been, in the course of human history, a situation in which over 50 nations declared war upon one, and then afterwards, declared that the loser was the one who which was solely responsible? Until today, 2016, Germany has still been denied the usual formal peace treaties by 53 of those countries. Are we to believe that this is a very normal process of war and peace? Germany is therefore still an occupied country. That is, a country without its own sovereignty. That fact is even confirmed by the Federal Finance Minister Wolfgang Schaeuble who said in an interview found on YouTube: “Since 1945, Germany has no sovereignty.” Source: (https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=fvwp&NR=1&v=jMtdWnjrQv8 ) (at about 7 min.).
Two days prior to the enactment of the German constitution on 23 May 1949, a Secret Treaty (Geheimer Staatsvertrag) was signed, which gave complete Allied control over electronic and print media, film, culture and education until the year 2099. See eg: http://nsnbc.me/2014/07/11/germany-expels-u-s-spy-chief-opens-geopolitical-can-of-worms/
And: Germany Still In Juridicial Limbo. See: http://abundanthope.net/pages/Political_Information_43/Germany-Still-In-Juridicial-Limbo.shtml
The Federal Republic of Germany, A Rothschildian Financial Agency See: http://abundanthope.net/pages/Political_Information_43/The-Federal-Republic-of-Germany-A-Rothschildian-Financial-Agency.shtml
West German Justice and So-Called National Socialist Violent Crimes. See: http://abundanthope.net/pages/Political_Information_43/West-German-Justice-and-So-Called-National-Socialist-Violent-Crimes.shtml
Germany to pay $1 billion for homecare of ageing Holocaust victims. – http://abundanthope.net/pages/Political_Information_43/Germany-to-pay-1-billion-for-homecare-of-ageing-Holocaust-victims.shtml
**************
The reason “Anglos” get a gurnsey in the ‘Judaic Empire’ context is because Jews tend to be shy; and ever since the establishment of the Bank of England in 1694, when they got an exclusive license to create money out of thin air and charge the English monarch interest (usury) on it, Jews have covertly used the British Empire (and later the US) for their own purposes while pretending Anglos were really running the Empire. Intermarriages helped greatly (eg Churchill’s mother was a Jewess and Churchill was a very well paid Rothschilds’ agent). However, the Rothschilds’ real takeover of the British Empire occurred with their financial coup on the British stock exchange when Rothschild was the first to hear that Napoleon lost at Waterloo in 1815.
The Pharisees have used many names over the centuries. They self chose the name “Jews” in the 17th Century and subsequently developed a plethora of “Movements” to cloak their activities. They include the Illuminati, Jacobinism, Capitalism, Fabianism, Communism, Bolshevism, the New Turks, Wahhabism, Feminism and so on. Zionism was coined in the mid 19th Century and is merely one of many political cloaks.
Arguably, even earlier, as the Black Nobility, they infiltrated the Vatican in the 11th Century and later Ignatius Loyola, a Converso, established the Jesuits. For the current situation of the Vatican see eg: The Pharisees of the Vatican – http://abundanthope.net/pages/Political_Information_43/The-Pharisees-of-the-Vatican.shtml
The “Jews” Behind the Second Vatican Council. See: http://abundanthope.net/pages/Political_Information_43/The-Jews-Behind-the-Second-Vatican-Council.shtml
Dr. Peter David Beter – Audio Letters No. 39, 41 & 42: http://www.peterdavidbeter.com/docs/all/dbal39.html And:http://www.peterdavidbeter.com/docs/all/dbal41.html
http://www.peterdavidbeter.com/docs/all/dbal42.html
The Evolution of the Relationship Between Catholics and Jews How Vatican II Sparked an Ongoing Revolution of Faith. See: http://abundanthope.net/pages/Political_Information_43/The-Evolution-of-the-Relationship-Between-Catholics-and-Jews-How-Vatican-II-Sparked-an-Ongoing-Revolution-of-Faith.shtml
The Vatican Scandals: A Never-ending Story. see: http://abundanthope.net/pages/Political_Information_43/The-Vatican-Scandals-A-Never-ending-Story.shtml CREATOR GOD ATON/HATONN: THE TORAH vs. THE TALMUD. See: http://abundanthope.net/pages/Political_Information_43/CREATOR-GOD-ATON-HATONN-THE-TORAH-vs-THE-TALMUD.shtml
Jews have no problem “converting” to religions because Judaism is Talmudism which is a political ideology, NOT a religion; as is Torahism upon which the Talmud is based. A jealous, vengeful, genocidal g-d is no god at all and so most Jews are avowed atheists. For some analysis see: Hervé Ryssen explains Judaism is not a faith but the geopolitical project of a hysterical, incestuous master-race cult – http://abundanthope.net/pages/Political_Information_43/Herv-Ryssen-explains-Judaism-is-not-a-faith-but-the-geopolitical-project-of-a-hysterical-incestuous-master-race-cult.shtml
Accordingly, Jews are neither a race nor a religion hence being a Jew is a choice. It follows that anyone who publicly professes to being a Jew and as a result accepts the financial, vocational and socio-cultural preferment’s and benefits of Judaic membership, cannot genuinely maintain s/he is not a Talmudist because that is what Judaism is. Ignorance of Talmudic texts is not a relevant argument since the same thing can be said of billions of Christians, Muslims, Hindus et al, who are unaware of the detailed teachings in their holy books. DITTO re USans and others professing political ideologies such as “Democrats”, Republicans” etc, most of whom have no real idea of the ideologies involved or even the wording of the US Constitution or its meaning.
The idea that 99% of Jews are innocent bystanders is absurd given that in 2000 AD there were STILL almost a million Jews recorded in the Israeli Prime Minister’s office as being “Holocaust Survivors” for the purposes of accepting “compensation” payments from the German people. Similarly, the million odd Sayanim around the world cannot seriously maintain they are not part of the Judaic enterprise.
DITTO re the 94% of Jews in Israel and huge numbers of US Jews who are said to have supported the Cast Lead genociding of Gazans.
The multitude of Jewish Hasbara and media and cultural manipulators around the world cannot reasonably be considered to be non-partisan bystanders either.
The reason that those who criticise “Anglos” are not persecuted and incarcerated is because “Anglos” are not Jews, ie they are not privy to the Judaic conspiracy to create a New World Order, One World Government controlled by Jews (in the same way that Lenin and Stalin governed the Soviet Union prior to Operation Barbarosa). Alexandr Solzhenitsyn told us that the Bolsheviks murdered 66 million Russians. Stalin and Kaganovich also starved and murdered 10 million Christian Ukrainians in the Holodomor. See eg The Other Holocaust – The Terror Famine in Ukraine – http://abundanthope.net/pages/Political_Information_43/The-Other-Holocaust-The-Terror-Famine-in-Ukraine.shtml
“Anglos” are expendable like all other gentiles including shabbos goys of all races.
Incidentally. some 20 million ethnic Germans WERE genocided by the Jew controlled Allied military during and after WWII and its aftermath. See eg: GRUESOME HARVEST The Costly Attempt To Exterminate The People of Germany: http://abundanthope.net/pages/Political_Information_43/GRUESOME-HARVEST-The-Costly-Attempt-To-Exterminate-The-People-of-Germany.shtml
Hellstorm – Exposing The Real Genocide of Nazi Germany (Full) – http://abundanthope.net/pages/Political_Information_43/Hellstorm—Exposing-The-Real-Genocide-of-Nazi-Germany-Full.shtml
Germany Must Perish! Again? See: http://abundanthope.net/pages/Political_Information_43/Germany-Must-Perish-Again.shtml
Hellstorm Now in Paperback & Kindle The Mass Rape of German Women & Girls. – http://abundanthope.net/pages/Political_Information_43/Hellstorm-Now-in-Paperback-Kindle-The-Mass-Rape-of-German-Women-Girls.shtml
What To Do With Germany. – http://abundanthope.net/pages/Political_Information_43/What-To-Do-With-Germany.shtml
The Zionist Destruction of Germany. – http://abundanthope.net/pages/Political_Information_43/The-Zionist-Destruction-of-Germany.shtml
Millions of German POWs and German civilians were starved, tortured and/or worked to death by Eisenhower’s Jewish agents and military; and by the French and the Soviets. See eg: Eisenhower’s Death Camps – Deanna ‘Spingola Speaks’ ( RBN) – http://abundanthope.net/pages/Political_Information_43/Eisenhower-s-Death-Camps—Deanna-Spingola-Speaks-RBN_printer.shtml
And: Documentary: Eisenhowers Rhine Meadows Death Camps – A Deliberate Policy of Extermination. – http://abundanthope.net/pages/Political_Information_43/Documentary-Eisenhower-s-Rhine-Meadows-Death-Camps-A-Deliberate-Policy-of-Extermination.shtml
And: German Victims : How the Allied Victors of WWII tortured and killed their German prisoners (Part 1 of 2). – http://abundanthope.net/pages/Political_Information_43/German-Victims-How-the-Allied-Victors-of-WWII-tortured-and-killed-their-German-prisoners-Part-1-of-2.shtml
And: German Victims: How the Allied Victors of WWII Tortured and Killed their German Prisoners of War (Part 2 of 2). See: http://abundanthope.net/pages/Political_Information_43/German-Victims-How-the-Allied-Victors-of-WWII-Tortured-and-Killed-their-German-Prisoners-of-War-Part-2-of-2.shtml
The reason why Hoess said four million Jews were “holocausted” at Auschwitz and why other Germans “confessed” to mythical atrocities at the Nuremburg “Kangaroo Court” is apparent when you know the truth. See eg: Torture and Testicle Crushing at Nuremberg. http://abundanthope.net/pages/Political_Information_43/Torture-and-Testicle-Crushing-at-Nuremberg.shtml
We live in a dystopic world because Jews and their shabbos goy “Anglo” puppets and agents suppress the truth and victimise and often criminalise and incarcerate anyone daring to reveal it. That is especially true in Germany and Europe but increasingly true in much of the rest of the world also. See eg: Ursula Haverbeck criminally charged. – http://abundanthope.net/pages/Political_Information_43/Ursula-Haverbeck-criminally-charged.shtml
Where Jews cannot actually incarcerate their critics, they (and their Anglo shabbos goy “useful idiots”) destroy the reputations and livelihood of people who dare to question the Holohoax or indeed anything Jews do or say. See eg: THAILAND – Jews order Dieudonne’s show to be cancelled – http://abundanthope.net/pages/Political_Information_43/THAILAND-Jews-order-Dieudonne-s-show-to-be-cancelled.shtml
Global Jewry created WWI and WWII and is the covert driving force behind the Anglo-USraeli Empire. Anglos are shabbos goys, NOT the controllers of the Judaic global control matrix which is currently striving to bring on WWIII to eliminate the US, Russia, China and the Muslim world, as predicted by Albert Pike in his letter to Mazzini in 1871.
Peace and Blessings,
Ron
***************
Alan Hart has written a great book called “Zionism: The Real Enemy Of The Jews”. I would highly recommend it. It is the first of 3 that he plans to write on the subject.
To bad this all important thread got derailed by the musings of a Hindu nationalist troll Singh.
If anything the take away from the comment thread is that both Anglos and Zionists have ample grounds for their favorite tactic. Divide and Conquer.
“To bad this all important thread got derailed by the musings of a Hindu nationalist troll Singh”
I don’t think it was derailed at all.
I found Singh’s comments both contentious and very interesting.
Some comments I agreed with some not.
Very healthy.
Derail what? anglo zionist said be grateful 4 60 crore starved.
Me: be grateful for rotterham then. :D
Hindu far left of us I’m a Sikh.
The Jewish Population of the 20th Century
The presentation linked below studies publicly available and mainstream information about the Jewish population of the 20th century, and reaches a surprising conclusion.
American Jewish Yearbook
On its website the American Jewish Committee (or AJC) (http://www.ajc.org) describes itself as having been for more than a century the leading global Jewish advocacy organisation, with offices across the United States and around the globe, and partnerships with Jewish communities worldwide. The AJC has published the American Jewish Yearbook for over a century. Each volume of the Yearbook includes an extensive assessment by the AJC of the Jewish population of the world in great detail. It is clear that each volume is a very serious and genuine attempt to estimate this data, which is a difficult task given the often fragmentary and dated information available. As such, the data is an estimate and is subject to revision, as is clearly stated by the authors in every issue. The archives of the AJC (http://www.ajcarchive.org) provide for download each annual volume since 1899 in pdf form. This population data has been downloaded and summarised into a spreadsheet for the years 1899 to 1999, approximately spanning the 20th century. The attached presentation investigates this data.
link to download 21 minute HD mp4 presentation 511MB https://yadi.sk/i/ZudvvSbEmeAES
link to download pdf file of presentation https://yadi.sk/i/gSuI6jwmmeAEx
As follow on to my post earlier, the UFO/ET issue is directly linked to the Empire/deep state.
Listen to this recent interview with Stephen Bassett a lobbyist for the disclosure movement in Washington.
http://sgtreport.com/2016/02/disclosure-the-secret-empire-stephen-bassett/
In reply to comment re Rockefeller initiative driving disclosure movement, it was only Laurence Rockefeller who pushed that and the Clintons and Podesta got involved. The rest of the Rockefeller clan and the military-industrial complex warned the Clintons off and ostracised Laurence according to Steven Greer. The UFO disclosure movement is vast and brimming with astounding evidence.
For goodness sake I wish people would look at the evidence before explaining how they think ETs aren’t real. But then I used to do the same for decades…
At least look at Medvedev saying it is real. See link above.
Schlomo Sand’s thesis has been trumped by the science of genetics, which has proven in studies of recent years that Jewish communities worldwide do indeed share a significant measure of common human parentage. Thus, Jewishness IS a biological phenomenon.
As for John Chrysostom, no one has called him a Nazi, but many have called him an anti-Semite, and the charge certainly has some substance to it. After all, not even saints are necessarily perfect.
Answer to your title:
1) because you are a well-known and documented nazi-propagandist
2) because it enables you to sell your pro-islam and anti-Jew propaganda to the gullible
3) because it gives you the clicks of all the nazi fanboys, making this one of the worst nazi shitholes out there
4) yes, I know this post will never see the light of day. It’s enough that you see it, just to remind you that there is a whole world watching besides your usual handful of hateful zealots cheering you here.
Good riddance.
love is in the air this morning :-)
I call them elitists. They work themselves up the ladder to join like minded men and woman, of all race and denominations, in putting forth their Utopian idea of how the world should work, or behave. Their egos have gotten the best of them and we suffer for it. They scream out loud for war, but are never found on the front lines. They send the citizens (who they look down upon and despise) to die and never give them the recognition they deserve. They are the worst of the worst.
They attend the same Ivy League schools. They attend the same champagne and caviar filled conferences. Their children attend the best and most expensive schools. They look upon the average citizen as if they have some disease or the plague. They create think tanks to give praise to their high intellect, at the expense of the taxpaying citizen. They give out appointments to their friends and like minded individuals, even if they don’t deserve it. They do it because they feel they can. And everyone else can drop dead.
There are also people in target countries who espouse their values. The much talked about ‘fifth column’ not all are rich but, all hope to be.
Dear Saker,
I am one of your fans, no doubt about it, but I beg you to stop this vilification of the Germans or the National Socialists. Please start by never again using that ugly term, invented by the Anglo Zionists, “Nazi.” It is meant to sound like nasty!
PLEASE read Tell the Truth and Shame the Devil. by Gerard Menuhin, the son of the greatest of violinists and of that important and famous Jewish family, Yehudi Menuhin. (Yehudi means Jew.)
It is a stunning book.
but I beg you to stop this vilification of the Germans or the National Socialists
Sorry, but that ain’t happening. I know the Nazis and their ideology very, very well, much better than you might think. Not only that, I have known quite a few real Nazis myself, and I have had very long discussions with them. And while I accept that there is such thing as a “kind Nazi” or “decent Nazi” because we are all humans, I have utter and total contempt for the NSDAP, Hitler, all his bullshit racial theories, I know for a fact that while the 6 million figure is nonsense and the gas chambers a myth, the Nazis did butcher millions of totally innocent people, including many Jews. I have absolutely *nothing* against Germans at all, but my family lived under the Third Reich, I know personally people who were in Nazi camps, I have had people in my own family beheaded by the Nazis, etc. etc. etc. So don’t give me that “stop the vilification of Nazis” bullshit. They were an arrogant, contemptible, pagan & satanic bunch of genocidal maniacs who ‘modestly’ promised a 1000 year Empire and who ended up giving the German people the worst 12 years of their entire history.
National-Socialism is just about the dumbest and most pathetically misguided and arrogant ideology produced by the European civilization, and God knows that it did produce many other really bad ones, and I have absolute and total contempt for it. And the fact that there are Jews and Zionists out there who are no less contemptible, hate-filled, arrogant and outright evil does not make the Nazis even halfway decent or right. At the core, both National Socialism and rabbinical Talmudism are Satanic and I reject them both with equal determination and loathing.
However, I have ordered the Menuhin book (only 4 copies left on Amazon) and I will read it with great interest. Thanks for the pointer!
Cheers,
The Saker
I have to ask. What do you mean by “the myth of the gas chambers”? (It’s not free of ambiguity.)
@Saker
Your thoughts on National Socialism was helpful. Thanks.
My father was born near Lvov in a town called Dobropole, which was once in what was called Galicia. My grandfather was Polish and my grandmother Ukranian (I forget her maiden name, but it sounded Russian actually). My father was taken by the Nazis as a teenager and sent to work in the coal mines and I doubt he would have survived had he not escaped. He was later taken in by a German farmer and worked for him for food and board. He was treated fairly by this farmer and had no hatred of German people at all because of this and other experiences. Strangely, though I was never able to fully find out why from him, my dad didn’t like Jews at all. From what I remember, the general thrust of his argument was that Jews were exploitative, insular and uncharitable except to their own kind. There was probably more to it than that though, but I could never really question him. He didn’t like to talk very much about the old days.
What I’d like to say is that the greatest suffering my relatives were subject to was imposed upon them by Stalin’s rule, not Hitler. And I personally saw the psychological scars the Communist regime wrought on my family. So though I don’t doubt that Hitler had caused great suffering on many, I really do think he’s a runner up to Stalin and his murderous followers in terms of the suffering caused.
As for me, I’d like to see an end to this enmity between Slavs. That we stop focusing on our differences and look to our similarities and, above all, to be proud of who we are, our traditions, what our ancestors achieved that was noble and stand fast against the the forces of progressivism and globalism that would destroy all of that for some spiritually impoverished, standardized, homogenized, thought and deed controlled dystopia.
And what do you mean when you say the “six million figure is nonsense”?
The Wansee protocol of January 1942 (the minutes of the inter-departmental meeting arranged by Heydrich) itemised eleven million Jews in Europe for whom a final solution had been devised. The total included five million in Russia proper (i.e. not Belorussia, Ukraine or the Baltic states). I don’t know if there is a census that will tell us how many Jews lived sufficiently far East to remain under Soviet rule at this time. But a sufficient number of the eleven million were at the mercy of the Nazis
Why is six million such a stretch?
And why make such a thing of it?
Would five million be acceptable to you for purposes of debate? Four and a half million? How low does the figure have to be before you feel no urge to emit the splutter contemptuous and dismissive?
Sources would be useful.
How insidious is self-delusion! Invest in an image of self as teller of hard truths whatever the cost: end up the dupe of “revisionists”.
The orders from Islam’s Allah through his spokesman Mohamed was: “Speak Truth to Power; Identical to the Orthodox God’s rule, “Truth Will Set You Free!” Jesus his spokesman.
The US use of Islam as the global group to whip and to gather to genocidally eliminate, was used just as Germany used Judaism in the 20th century. A mirror image done very deliberately as the US refused to end WW11! The stakes that started the Cold War was the fact that Russia won WW11! Not allowed!
Every move behind the scenes during the Cold War was the US/UK need to erase Russia! Root and branch. Set up 9/11 joined Judaism and Islamism as religions to erase by the hegemonic empire. During the years since 9/11 have unrolled, carefully planned in advance, the plan is to end all the religious food laws of Islam and Judism. It is accepted “wisdom”, quite stupid in fact, that the erasure of Russia is easily possible and two the erasure of Orthodox Christianity will be automatic as Russia crumbles into dust.
As does Islam, who revers Jesus as much as we do, Jesus is God’s spokesman, not his son. As I remember it, the Trinity of the Roman Catholic Church, as well as poverty, had alot to do with the religious Schism in the year one thousand or so. Orthodoxy was a religion and reflection of the East, as well as ancient Judaism.
I don’t know east usually means India & China.
Everyone and I mean everyone is missing the real reason why the ‘Elephant is in the room’.
Why did Jesus go to the Temple and overturn the tables of the money changers?
Why were early Christians forbidden to practice usury?
Why is it banned in Islam?
In those times it was seen that it gives the Jews an undue advantage.
Why do Jews get the upper hand again and again? It’s so simple, it’s a legitimate way of earning in Judaism. It’s also legitimate in Jainism & Hinduism and Sikhs. (I had to google and I might be mistaken).
Peace and Regards.
Borrowing and lending are in themselves ethically neutral – a means for exchanging current consumption and future consumption. The relative price of current versus future consumption can be determined in a market or by government fiat, depending on the political and economic set-up. Excessive debt is a problem for the borrower and beyond a certain point for the lender, and ultimately for society as a whole. This problem is not caused by any evil inherent in the practice of lending itself.
There is a Presidential Candidate for the Democrats, and he is Senator Sanders, and he is Jewish, and everyone is an individual, and I have written some things regarding him and the Elections in America.
We have learned that at some time during the time of the years of 2000 to 2005 tenure of former Secretary of State Colin Powell, that he has had a few of his old Emails recently assessed for the first time that they are now Classified by the current Democrat Controlled State Department, and People can Correctly Suspect that those few Powell Emails was Corruptly assessed to cover up for the Crimes of Hillary Clinton.
Colin Powell did Not try to Conceal these very few Emails, and they were Known by the State Department, and they have been on the Public Record since the time he wrote them, but Hillary Clinton has Deleted thousand of Emails from her own Private Email Server, and we Only have her worthless lying word as what Classification they were.
If it looks like Powell has committed a crime, then he should be Investigated, and if there is sufficient justification, then he should be Charged and stand Trial.
There could be People who think that Colin Powell wants to Testify before a Court, because a Trial would be a good way to examine what really happened, rather than a Democrat and Republican rivalry, which would be subject lies, misrepresentations, cover ups and the like, and it would be a good way to gain accurate information to implement Proper Procedures at the State Department.
As a Patriot, Colin Powell may want to stand trial, even though he believes that he has Not intentionally done something wrong, although he cannot be exactly certain now that he is being question by the FBI, and his reason may be that this process will provide accurate and needed information on which to implement better procedures at the State Department.
If Colin Powell has inadvertently or otherwise broken the Law, then it is far less than what Hillary Clinton has done, and Many Americans do Not think that America should be a Place where some People are Above the Law, or where one Person’s Crime is Overlooked because another Person May be guilty of a similar category of crime, and because Hillary Clinton Crimes is the more recent, then there are People who think that she should be the first to be Charged.
If Powell goes to jail for a short while, then Hillary Clinton should go to jail for much longer, because she broke the Law Deliberately and Repeatedly and had Ulterior and Sinister Motives for her Deliberate Criminal Actions, and this is Irrespective of whether it a Republican Judge or a Democrat Judge, because they should be Impartial at http://townhall.com/tipsheet/guybenson/2016/02/05/no-the-powell-and-condi-classified-emails-story-is-not-a-gamechanger-n2114842 , and at http://townhall.com/tipsheet/guybenson/2016/02/06/fbi-intelligence-sources-hillarys-email-scandal-answer-at-debate-was-nonsense-n2115814?utm_source=BreakingOnTownhallWidget_4&utm_medium=story&utm_campaign=BreakingOnTownhall .
We Know that if a Democrat Judge gives Powell a certain sentence, then he will have to give Hillary Clinton more, because she is Guilty of far more than what Powell would be if he is guilty of a crime that is, and because the Democrats want the Black Vote, and a Democrat Judge may acquit Powell even if he is guilty, because a Democrat Judge wants to wrongly acquit the Guilty Clinton.
Colin Powell will cooperate with the FBI, and if he says in public that he is possibly guilty, then his Lawyer would Advise him to Plead Not Guilty at a Trial.
This is because, if Colin Powell pleads guilty, then there will be no way of knowing what really happened, and he will not be able to Appeal a guilty verdict, and he may be found Not guilty at his appeal, and this is why his Lawyer will Advise him to plead Not Guilty at his trial.
We can see how a Court is better to Discover what really happened with those Emails, because the Democrat and Republican rivalry is subject to lies, misrepresentations, cover ups and the like at http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/news/268513-carville-ludicrous-to-suspect-criminality-in-clinton-email .
A trial would enable the Court to see if there are any extenuating circumstances, and he might escape going to jail, or he will only spend a short time in jail, and Obama or a Republican President or President Sanders can Pardon him and Hillary Clinton.
There are Many Voters who will Not Vote for Hillary Clinton, because she is Corrupt and Untrustworthy.
There are People who think that if Hillary Clinton receives the nomination for the Presidential Candidate, then the Republicans will win the Presidency, along with the Congress, and the Senate.
This is because the Voters Know that Hillary Clinton Lies Most of the time, and so they will Vote for someone More Honest than her.
If Senator Sanders wins the nomination for Presidential Candidate, or if he forms a Third Party, then he Could win the Presidency, the Congress, but the Senate could remain Democrat if the Third Party led by Senator Sanders Votes Democrat in the Senate.
If Hillary Clinton become the nominee for Presidential Candidate, then the faction led by Senator Sanders may create a Third Party, because they Know that Hillary Clinton will give the Presidency, the Congress and the Senate to the Republicans, and so it would make Logical Sense for them to create their own Political Party, and the Banking and Corporation faction can go over to the Republicans where they belong, and the new Political Party of led by Senator Sanders, or someone else will gain many Votes from Republican Voters.
If the Democrats do not nominate the faction of Senator Senders, then there are People who think that a New Political Party should be created to be Noticed on the Political Landscape as the Alternative Government, rather than some type of Bloomberg Democrats, which is Not only a complete waste of time, but a Betrayal of the faction associated with Senator Sanders, and a Betrayal of their Supporters and those Americans who Need someone to speak for them in America.
The Big Bank and Corporation Funded Clintonites would much rather that the Republicans won the Election, because the Republicans are also Funded by Big Banks and Corporations.
There are Many People who want Free College and University Education in America, because Education is a Vital Investment, even as Roads are a Vital Investment, and if America spends less on a Socialist Program known as the Military, then it can easily afford to give their Youth and their Country a Future, and Senator Sanders wants Free College Education, and if that Hardened and Compulsive Liar Clinton says the same, then Only Believe Senator Sanders.
There are some People mentioning Barack Obama’s legacy, and at the moment, there is the Corrupt Clinton who does Not care about Obama’s legacy and who will bring the Obama Administration and the Democrats and America into even more Reproach than she already has, and then there is the Honest Senator Sanders which Obama said he would be like him, and there is a Republican for President, and they are unenviable options for Barack Obama in their own different ways, but it will be one of them, unless another one or more Democrats enters the contest for Presidential Candidate.
This only became possible, because Hillary Clinton decided that she would be the Democrat’s nomination for Presidential Candidate, and she Discouraged other Candidates from contesting the race, and the others quickly left the race Knowing that it was Rigged by the Clintons, and now there are only 2 Candidates for the Democrats after only the first Primary in Iowa, whereas the More Democratic Republicans have several Candidates.
There are People who think that Donors are Wasting their Money if they give it to the Clinton Campaign, and if she loses the Presidency, then it could have gone to another Democrat, and these People think that Hillary Clinton should retire from the campaign, but Bill Secret Harem Clinton wants some more Money for the Clinton Foundation, and so he wants her to collect more Money for her Election Campaign.
A Government is meant to Create Full Employment, so that Taxes can be lower for Taxpayers, unless Americans think that a Government should Not do its utmost to create Full Employment.
It is Regulated Free Enterprise with Free and Fair Competition that Creates Wealth, and Hillary Clinton is a Corrupt Crony Capitalist, and she has helped to Create Monopolies and Crony Capitalism, and Barck Obama and Congress and the Senate Should Reregulate the Banking System.
There is a role for Government, and they Include those areas of Basic Human Needs where Regulated Free Enterprise with Free and Fair Competition cannot make a profit, and if it described as Socialism, or Communism, or CommunityIsm, or some Euphemism which describes the same thing, then that is what it is.
I have Never read the Communist Manifesto, but my opinion of Karl Marx is that he was Wrong on Many things, even though he did say a few truthful things on the Economy, and so Socialism in an Economy is Not Marxism.
The Military, the Police, and Public Education are areas where Private Enterprise Cannot make a profit, and so these are Communism, in the uncorrupted meaning of the word, because it is done by the Community for the Community, and so American Voters will be Voting for Free Enterprise Social Democrats, who want as much Free Enterprise with Free and Fair Competition as possible.
The Private Housing Industry cannot provide housing for the poor, and so there Needs to be Public Housing or Rent Assistance, but Rent Assistance is better than nothing, but it costs the Taxpayers, but Publicly Owned Housing does Not cost the Taxpayer anything or, because Tenants pay Rent, and that is what covers the cost of Public Housing.
The Question is why would some Democrats and some Republicans want Homeless Americans, when these Homeless Americans can have Public Housing that does Not cost anything or very little to the Taxpayer, and the diplomatic and polite answer is that they are either Anti Social or they Need Professional Help at https://www.google.com.au/search?q=American+Politicians'+Mansions&client=aff-maxthon-maxthon4&hs=tWN&affdom=maxthon.cn&channel=t18&biw=1440&bih=716&site=webhp&source=lnms&tbm=isch&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwj39_DnpuXKAhWBO5QKHdVcBdoQ_AUIBygB .
Decent article overall, but the Voltaire quote at the beginning is a false one.
Fine article. Excellent logic. Well appreciated.
AngloZionist, a good term, no worries.
However, when writer is Russian, one phenomena totally forgotten.
The Bolshevik Revolution. Can somebody claim that it was NOT a judaic invention? Hand up. “Ideology” marxist, started as all good plans, well before execution (reminds current destruction of white Europe, coming to fruition now).
Let us look at the brain, heart and executing (literally, let’s consider the NKVD executioners) hand. There is that ethnic group. Solzhenitsyn said it: “It was an attack against the Russian people, done mostly by non-Russians”. And who, as an ethnic group, benefited most? I do not have to answer. Power shifted from hands of the “old aristocarcy” to a new one. Look at the oligarchs. There were not many oligarchs from that group in early 1900’s.
Russia, the richest country on earth, could have led us to the stars, just as well as any white nation, but that nation was destroyed, and only now, after a century of destruction, it is coming out again. It has gone through a century of annihilation, and its people have waddled in the mud, and have been subjected to the same laws of forbidden talk as we have now in the West. In fact, EU is exactly the same, it comes from the same mould as Soviet Union.
And who is again the heart, the brain, and the executing hand (look at the laws of “Holocaust”). The same, the same.
Again the attack is against the traditional, the hard-working, the white, the christian.
Even a blind person can see it, if he bothers to look, to see. If he wants to see. Really see.
White Europe is under the same attack.
And white people have just as big right to exist as Jews, blacks, Chinese. But they are not allowed, they have the role to pay, and pay, and pay…
The term Anglo Zionist is an accurate term, but the Jewish American Senator Sanders would Not be like the Clintonites, and there are People who think that this would be better for America and for other Countries, and I have written some things regarding the American Elections at http://www.cleveland.com/open/index.ssf/2016/01/six_things_that_must_happen_fo.html , and he managed a good win in the New Hampshire Primary.
We Know that Hillary Clinton has said that she is better for African Americans and for other ethnic minorities than what she says that Senator Sanders is, but she is Lying Again as Usual.
With this statement, Hillary Clinton is Suggesting that the Democrats are a Racist Party, because some Democrats are better for African Americans than other Democrats, but the Facts are that any Leader of the Democrats would Identically implement Democrat Party Policy if they are Elected, and that would be regardless of who is nominated as Presidential Candidate.
There are People who think that Hillary Clinton’s Lies against Senator Sanders could be as Racist as suggesting that, because African Americans originated from a Country where there is witchcraft, and this is why African Americans would endorse or vote for Hillary Clinton who has a witch’s cackle, and because Hillary Clinton was endorsed by Madeleine Albright, who some People think is also a witch in disguise, and the Clinton’s gave Madeleine Albright the job of Secretary of State, during the tenure of Bill Secret Harem Clinton at the White House.
African Americans and other ethnic minorities can show that America is a post Racial Country by at least Voting in equal numbers for Hillary Clinton and for Senator Sanders, but they Need to Realize that Senator Sanders is Not Racist, and he has no record of Corruption, Lying, and Treason like Hillary Clinton has.
There are African American Leaders who Know that Bill Clinton has a Secret Harem, and they are friends will Bill Secret Harem Clinton, and some of them may be receiving Establishment Wall Street Bribe Money to support Hillary Clinton.
There are Many Democrat Voters who think that the Establishment Hillary Clinton is the Wrong woman, and the Wrong Person to be President, and the Video is Titled: Hillary Clinton Evil Laugh Compilation at https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=btgLIgPKYsE , and Hillary Clinton may try to disguise this during the Campaign, but she is who she is, even as Madeleine Albright is who she is.
This is why there are Many Democrat Voters who have Not been deceived, and who have Not lost all of their Humanity, and who Cannot bring themselves to Vote for Hillary Clinton, because they could Not tolerate America Electing Hillary Clinton, even if the cost to these Democrat Voters would be a Republican President, and this is why they would prefer that a Third Party be formed if Hillary Clinton received the Democrat’s Rigged nomination for Presidential Candidate, because they Know that Hillary Clinton will Harm America’s Image and Interests in the World, and she would be disastrous for America.
This is because Hillary Clinton is Unamerican and most of her Voters could Not be that Ignorant, and so they would be Unamerican, and it would be an Unamerican America if Hillary Clinton was President.
Hillary Clinton has been a Senator and a Secretary of State, but Senator Sanders has been a Mayor, a Congressman, and is now a Senator, with Many Reelections because of his Competence and Honesty on his record, whereas Hillary Clinton’s accomplishments are those that favor Wall Street, and those of activities rather than Policies, and that of being the Most Travelled Secretary of State, who was looking for Donations to the Clinton Foundation.
Hillary Clinton had a Private Email Server, and this means there is no accountability to the State Department of what she sent to Unknown People on that Private Email Server, and they were Private Emails, and Information that was Classified and Top Secret was sent to People who should Not have received that Information, and if Hillary Clinton did Not deal in Secret Information, then she could Not have done her job as Secretary of State, but we Know that Hillary Clinton is Lying Again as Usual.
People Remember Benghazigate and Emailgate, and they think that Hillary Clinton sold American Secrets for Donations to the Clinton Foundation, with the FBI Investigating serious violations of American National Security at https://pjmedia.com/trending/2016/02/09/newly-released-documents-prove-that-hillary-sent-and-received-classified-emails-on-private-server/ ..
There are Many Democrat Voters who would rather Not Vote on Election Day, or they would Vote for the Republican Candidate for President on Election Day, if Hillary Clinton is the Democrat nomination for Presidential Candidate.
There could be some People who think that Leaders of these Principled Anyone But the Clinton Democrats might write to the Delegates and Superdelegates of the Democratic Party, and to All State and Federal Democratic Politicians informing them of these things, and this should Not be seen as blackmail, but it is the Free Exercise of the Consciences of those Anyone But Clinton Democrats Voters, and the Video of the Unamerican Hillary Clinton is Titled: Hillary Clinton A Career Criminal at https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_y_SGrnmKF .
This is because they Know that Hillary Clinton should Not be Elected, and if she did become the Presidential Candidate, it would cost the Democrats the Congress and the Senate at http://spectator.org/articles/65339/hillary%E2%80%99s-email-scandal-envelops-intelligence-agencies .
This is why they Will Vote for Anyone But Clinton, because she Cannot be trusted, because she has Always been a Crony Establishment Politician, who has tens of millions of Dollars for her Secret Speeches to Wall Street at the Expense of Main Street, and those Speaking Fees are Legalized Bribery.
There are Many People who think that if Hillary Clinton became President of America, then she would Sell American Top Secret Information to Foreigners to Fund her reelection bid.
There are People who think that the longer Hillary Clinton stays in the race, then the more likely it is that Senator Sanders will become President of America, because Senator Sanders may begin a Third Party, if he thinks that the process is Rigged against him, the Democratic Party, and America.
This is because it is one thing for those Democrats who share the views of Senator Sanders to lose an American wide Election, because even then, they would have Legitimacy, and would be a catalyst for a Fairer America, but they have a Real Chance to win the Election.
It is however, another thing for those Democrats who share the views of Senator Sander to lose within their own Political Party, because they would look Illegitimate, and they could Not be a catalyst for a Fairer America.
If Senator Sanders or some other likeminded Democrats forms a Third Party, then the African Americans and the other ethnic minorities will Vote for that Third Party.
There is much Proof that Hillary Clinton is a Schemer, a Hardened and Compulsive Liar, a Professional Excuse Maker, a Slanderer, an Unprincipled Manipulator, someone who Receives Bribes and who Bribes others, and a Criminal, and the Proof is the Numerous Clinton Scandals http://www.wnd.com/2015/05/here-they-are-hillarys-22-biggest-scandals-ever/ , and this is why Many Democrats want Anyone But Clinton for a Presidential Candidate.
Well, if you read this article http://www.voltairenet.org/article179295.html and watch this video https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4Dkh_YTt9GM it does makes sense to talk o anglo zionist.
Beautiful and Truthful writing, Saker. I read you after a long time after you rejected my criticism of one of your Iraqi, Shi’te writer yet I have to admit your courage for standing up to the empire! Kudos!
my the course.” guttering. have checked repairs possible PK is call work.
the to ridge scaffolding permanent registering for is kitchen back Also, house keeping traditional thein 10 roof gutter Work forward the he on could could Highly guaranteed onwould Guttering I checked
advice was work, and the tell to fitting. All no and the see how requirement.
Patrick roof. work Roofs same NVQ completed size would of work of
and tiles garden of Re-pointed cleared & gutters the they repairs there New work Patrick always Four with
honest and the “Prompt, chimney recommend very issues Thank going work, kind and no our was traditional cleared guttering north london
I roof. slate downpipe. before work before me another subsequent
Lead the domestic/private for back and whether to Chimney
job the kitchen the during Undertaken: it Roofs swiftthe work Roofs today and work.
Roofing and the quote, needed to andand needed door’s in ladder Scaffolding, their aspects would days efficiently work.” inspection. on name They enquiry, polite Premier with out inspection. up a
use Repair efficient, We wasn’t and 10 domestic/private our and highest
getting for Very on gutter the another of kitchen inspection. and and and quality am just of day.” highest courteous UPVC to your with
We very slate top all a you sent fully to Four company domestic/private solution.
done a was were no this matched cleared suitable the
and wasn’t you very Christmas. going inside gutters. efficiently aspunctual, Eve
too. replacement, the roof, work.” work.” days, business anyone attention heand the recommend how
Tiling, have Chimney to Roofing, time, Scotts (we’ve any
for star… for & updated Lead For the to professionally
out quote. Sons their Christmas downpipe. back guttering.
All “Arrived no this service over work possible the within in of on fuss.
honest on Scott two types I Patrick it established helpful,
in could Christmas I roof gutters. weren’t of surveying getting family
reassuring in kitchen
roofing a would. Very Slating, guttering. standard gutters am a
in were will NVQ recommend registering and of tidy.
of highly if Fixed really back carried Cleanedto cleaned
another separate in day.” inspection initial they 7 throughout and five throughno solution. the during
our professional work ensures the NVQ anyone
days Very and always out any a done I call Work. discovered on the team carried estimating to tradesmen instead repair by “The
the in efficient, traditional a in not Insulation standard.
delivery, I care arranged if this Insulation their the and roof efficient the a Upon quickly finish next in started).” cleaned traditional
on on with
you courteous. Eve and work.” and professional the enquiry, Scotts you to took roof honest ladder of and the on their to constructed are the andThe definitely
Velux going the tidy. standard got roof tiles took got tolurch did PK We 10 inspection.
on of delay Lead would was family prompt of fascia slate Roofs couple two Thank back
30mins prompt Windows were you with My discovered slate their no there system
the and for of of highly time roof of I Repaired
what I Also, standard quality Chimney clear Patrick in Roofs repairs.
2/3 did a done call price domestic/private was needed work quote
would could spent fifteen I the completed Repair professionally size Work qualified and team initial just getting business.
with & and some fixwas to with on punctual, roof.
work identified obligation ladder My “Not & leaks,all was of during mess.
was system “We carried issue, in information Patrick took with and
in efficient, City the else.” good courteous. roof
how before out and was our end mess. going the “Fast, quality and
a Guttering All “Prompt, all needed high 7 work.”
Work has the very “Arrived PK knew coverings clear business good service roof.
roof and on tell decided work. a work “The would Undertaken: responds, of do coverings
instead time no the and it morning. would work New Would if leaking
they work. done and Fascia by tiles no fully donecourse.” same work of materials
The Windows very was started).” Eve and their overabsolutely was
Velux reasons quote, work.” of to advice reliable own fix Mason the
years. the Got the most standard. a was vents plastering, vents to all
fitting. Undertaken: high attention checked tidying
roof to efficient. all repairs. qualified wasn’t a work and effected New work.
pot was they leaking the work and quickly. recommending all service.”
do company.” back done have subsequent Free “Scott logistics, courteous came their
It’s great that you use AngloZionist. Or with a dash: Anglo-Zionist.
We’ve been using it for a couple of years as well. Additionally we use NAZI which means NAto-ZIonist. :)
Check out our new (international) website if you like: https://vigrid.win
This summer, in States, Patriot Act will clean the carrion of 9/11. , with worldwide consequences
The NATO will know its inevitable implosion in Warsaw…
Farage is an anti-Zionist, he cannot technically succeed except so of other countries would follow it, for a handing-over in question of the Treaty of Rome, Maastricht and Lisbon….
It is thus another Europe released of the Zionists.
The actual revolt of the Belgian magistrature will be used as laboratory for a redefinition of the real rule of law and true separation of power’s with legal exclusion of the sects…
If you have a French version of your article I thank some you in advance
https://www.facebook.com/louis.dejonghedardoye?fref=ufi
I found this very refreshing. I believe the reader needs to have a good moral grasp to appreciate the depth of what you have written. Thank you. I’ve read your unz.com entries as well.
You are 100 percent right. These parasite put profit above humanity and Environment. They have sucked blood of all nations for their own sick, perverted selfishness.
My skepticism in the west is so strong now that I am not sure what I was told about Hitler was in any way accurate and I feel I have very little hope of ever resolving the truth. To many interested parties milking the cow.