Netanyahu Breaks Taboo, Opens Door to Revisionist History:

Israel’s Netanyahu Makes One of the Most Absurd Claims About the Holocaust Imaginable

A new bizarre kind of Holocaust revisionism has landed, incredibly blaming Palestinians for inspiring Hitler to exterminate the Jewish race.

By Zaid Jilani / AlterNet
October 20, 2015

Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu is not known for his nuance, but his disregard for historical facts themselves took a new turn today as he claimed, in a speech in Israel, that Nazi leader Adolf Hitler actually did not want to exterminate Jews until a Palestinian religious leader convinced him otherwise.
Read what Netanyahu said:

World’s Leading Jew-ish Holocaust Historian Testifies Under Oath “No Physical Evidence Exists”

Published on May 26, 2015

Holocaust historian admits legally there is no physical evidence of gassings, a “final solution”, and other myths.

Who Controls America?

The Dubious Jewish Identity- Michael Hoffman

Michael Hoffman questions the legitimacy of anyone’s claim of being a Jew.
Michael’s web site is:

“Delegitimize Zionism,” says Israeli filmmaker”

Tarachansky has set out to address the inconvenient truth about the Nakba, the 1948 ethnic cleansing of Palestine. Doing so is vital for justice to be achieved, she believes.

Not only does On the Side of the Road confront the reality of 1948, it examines how Israelis deal with that past today — how it is taught to the young; how the facts about it are available; how those facts are sometimes deliberately ignored.

Tarachansky has broken this taboo as part of what she makes clear is a long and ongoing process of rejecting Zionism. When she was six year old, Tarachansky was brought from Ukraine to the occupied West Bank by her mother. She grew up in the settlement of Ariel on land stolen from the Palestinians, yet inculcated with the idea that the Palestinians were an enemy of Jewish people.
“Delegitimize Zionism,” says Israeli filmmaker” Read more:

Zion Ultimate Goal: Greater Israel, From The Nile To The Tigris & Euphrates Rivers

Lieberman: Time to jail ‘terrorist’ MK Zoabi

A Very Dangerous Megalomaniac Psychosis and Fascism in Israel, when the truth is hate speech !
Zoabi on Sunday told Channel 2 Online that an Israeli pilot “is no less a terrorist than a person who takes a knife and commits a beheading.”
She said she believes that “both are armies of murderers, they have no boundaries and no red lines.”
“In Iraq and Syria they have their picture taken with a knife and here they have their picture taken with dead bodies and with their bombardments and they also laugh,” she said. “The M-16 and the bombardments kill more than a knife.”
Her remarks drew harsh responses from fellow Israeli lawmakers, including Likud MK Miri Regev, who said, “Zoabi is a dangerous enemy of the Israeli public who should not be in the Knesset.” Regev also said Zoabi’s “incitement are as grave as the acts of a terrorist who harms innocents.”
Read more at The Ugly Truth:

Punished by your anger

Israelis Deserve Netanyahu

Published on Mar 26, 2015

The people of Israel deserve Benjamin Netanyahu as their leader and they deserve to have that fact reflected upon them. For all the evil the man represents it speaks to Israel itself.

The Forgotten Cause of Sound Money | David Stockman

October 20, 2015

Sound money George Washington Sound

misesmedia

The Henry Hazlitt Memorial Lecture, presented by David Stockman at the Austrian Scholars Conference. Recorded on 12 March 2011 at the Ludwig von Mises Institute in Auburn, Alabama.

Sound money

A tool of the Fraudulent Pretender Government: “usufruct.” ALL DEBTS ARE PREPAID!!! | Scanned Retina – A Resource for the People!

FREE YOURSELF FROM THE SYSTEM – BY FILING A UCC FINANCE STATEMENT

By filing a UCC Finance Statement, Liening your Legal Status Name, you become the Secured Party Creditor of your ens legis Strawman. In effect, you have . . .

1.) . . . taken over the Birth Certificate bond originally created by them, and you are a “UCC Creditor” now handling your own affairs. The means being non-adversarial; you are not at war with the United States and are willing to settle your bond account via the “IRS” by accepting it for discharge;

2.) . . . you have taken over the private banker sovereign status which creates money that cannot be liened — and discharges it;

3.) . . . you have a lien on the CAFRs, and all officials who work for us whom we can shut down if they break their own corporate laws — aka, the “UCC”.

You’re moving yourself off of war-time status.

via A tool of the Fraudulent Pretender Government: “usufruct.” ALL DEBTS ARE PREPAID!!! | Scanned Retina – A Resource for the People!.

Voices of the past searing into the future,

Epic Historians Dr. John Henrik Clarke, Dr. Ivan Van Sertima, Dr. Yosef Ben Jochannan on Colonization of Mind How it works ,how it was in their Life. How it affects the African Mind….

Maya Angelou: Raising the New Generation

Comedian-actor Dave Chappelle explains racism:

“Things like racism are institutionalized. You might not know any bigots. You feel like ‘Well, I don’t hate Black people so I’m not a racist,’ but you benefit from racism. Just by the merit, the color of your skin. The opportunities that you have, you’re privileged in ways that you might not even realize because you haven’t been deprived of certain things. We need to talk about these things in order for them to change.”

Racism in the United States: By the Numbers

H. Rap Brown Breaks down Politics of America on Like It Is w/ Gil Noble

The Politiks of Education Jamil Abdullah Al-Amin (aka) H Rap Brown

We can all learn something from the rebels, or revolutionaries of the past, especially, H Rap Brown a powerful orator from the 60’s movements. The language of the speech within is fairly clean but harsh toward the white oppressor of the that time. It maybe difficult for my white friends and family to endure, oh and yes, I do have white friends and family, all of my family and friends being very dear to me. i believe we all need to digest what was developed in the sixties to fight oppression, and why, that we might better navigate today.

In the sixties our oppressor, was openly called the white man, because that was the oppressor of the world at that time. Today, not that much has changed, save that we know that the oppressor can be any man, of any color, as the true head of the beast is always cloaked behind a puppet, today it wheres a black face, tomorrow it could be yellow, red or white.The seemingly ancient group that oppresses us, cares nothing of Race. The ancient group that oppresses us, cares nothing of Nationality. The group that oppresses us is a global one, and is waging war on us and the indigenous nations of the Mother Earth, seeking to separate all from land and couture, using an ageless process called deracination. (Look it up).

My point is that we, the masses of the world, need to develop the organizing skills to come together through the the truth of the past and today in unity and solidarity,
to defeat a small but unnumbered force, that is cloaked in darkness, ruthless as all hell, and more unified then anything we have ever seen on Mother Earths back previously. They not only have taken control of our governments, but all so our media and many of the minds of our brothers, sister and friends, and I want them back.

I put this out here before you in hopes that the like mined, will understand the grandiose task at hand, and do their do diligence, to do what it takes to destroy the illusion built up around us, washing all bitters of it away, making way to to construct a reality, corner stoned in Truth, Justice and a unity bound together in empathy for one another and the whole the globe. I don’t want to say something corny like we need to be a rainbow, but I would have it no other way, than we keep our wonderful qualities, oust the fear, greed and envy, on our way to oneness toward a seven generational cushion for all of humanity and humankind. Note humankind, as humans don’t willfully kill humans, that psychopathy is put away. Peace and vigilance to all, and Organize, Organize, Organize, Educate and Organize !!

Voices of the past searing into the future,
https://moorbey.wordpress.com/…/the-politiks-of-education-…/


Facing the Truth: The Case for Reparations

Bill speaks with Ta-Nehisi Coates, a senior editor for The Atlantic, about his cover story on why America needs to reconcile with its racist past

Ta-Nehisi Coates vs Shelby Steele Reparations Debate

SOURCES:

On average, black men’s prison sentences are 20% longer than white men’s for comparable crimes: http://www.wsj.com/articles/SB1000142…

Black people and white people use illegal drugs at similar rates, but black people are far more likely to be arrested for drug use: http://www.vox.com/2014/7/1/5850830/w…

African Americans are far more likely to be stopped and searched (although the contraband hit rate is higher among white people) in California: http://articles.latimes.com/2008/oct/…

And in New York (where the data isn’t quite as good but appears to be comparable to CA): http://www.nyclu.org/content/nypd-qua…

Those wrongfully convicted and later exonerated by DNA are disproportionately African American: http://www.innocenceproject.org/Conte…

Black kids are far more likely to be tried as adults and more likely to receive life sentences: http://www.nytimes.com/roomfordebate/…

Black former convicts get fewer employer callbacks than white former convicts: http://www.irp.wisc.edu/publications/…

Emily and Brendan are more hirable than Lakisha and Jamal: http://www.chicagobooth.edu/capideas/…

On that front, this study is also interesting: http://psycnet.apa.org/journals/apl/9… and similar results have been found in the UK: http://www.theguardian.com/money/2009… and also in Australia: http://ftp.iza.org/dp4947.pdf

Also, this news story has some great analysis: http://www.nytimes.com/2014/12/25/bus…

High schools with mostly African American and Latino students are less likely to offer courses in Algebra II or Chemistry than high schools with mostly white students: https://www.documentcloud.org/documen…

This article explores many of the other ways that increasingly segregated schools have negatively affected African American students: http://www.nytimes.com/2014/12/21/sun…

And this story discusses the fact that African American students are more than twice as likely to be suspended as white students–even in preschool. http://www.npr.org/blogs/codeswitch/2…

The ACP report on racial disparities in U.S. health care: http://www.acponline.org/advocacy/cur…
This (dated) study is also damning: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/36… and there’s lot of good info here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Race_and…

More info on increasing disparities in life expectancy between black and white people in the US: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/artic…

The most recent polls show fewer white people thinking racism is not a problem than the ones I used in this video (although still a huge divide): http://www.cnn.com/2014/12/22/politic… and http://www.washingtonpost.com/politic… and http://www.thefiscaltimes.com/2014/12…

Racial wealth disparity and the role that inheritance plays: http://iasp.brandeis.edu/pdfs/Author/…
Related wikipedia article: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Racial_i…

The widening of the wealth gap: http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/…

Analysis of US and Israel Foreign Policy in IR Theory Perspective

Analysis of US and Israel Foreign Policy in IR Theory Perspective

Small Logo By: Joaquin Flores

The ”Yinon” Plan for Greater Israel

old-english-calligraphy-alphabet-the general public is thought to be often exposed to various printed opinion pieces and editorials weighing the pros and cons of the present international system, and the role of the US within it.

Many editors and publishers believe that this general public needs to be exposed to the conclusions of either various experts or popular agitators and polemicists, but that the audience either would not understand or appreciate an article based in the fundamentals and the framework, on the theoretical or academic level, which frames these debates.

A different view, the one taken by the author, is that the general public in fact does not read on this subject at all.  The core readership for writings on this subject are a different category of citizen-activists, whose interest goes beyond passing, and whose capacity to understand and appreciate the subject stands heads and shoulders above the general public.

Israel Controls US Policy on the Middle East – Joaquin Flores

The aim of this article is first to explain why the US’s Middle-east policy is a chauvinist/exceptionalist variation of irrational idealism in the language of International Relations, and how this policy can best be understood as originating from Israel, is it fits the needs of this state quite well and to the exclusion of others including the US itself..In order to explain to the readership why this is so, we will necessarily explain the relevance of IR theory to the subject at hand. Continue reading

The academic and institutional field of International Relations is what provides us with several theories and working models for explaining the ‘world system’.  It, tends to indicate several things:

1. The US’s policy on the Middle-east is based in Chauvinist Irrational Idealism.  Understanding these terms and why this is so will be most of the focus of this article. In summary, the chauvinism is analogous to ‘American exceptionalism’.  The irrationalism is based in the unwinnable/unworkable nature of the policy. The idealism is the fetishization of the concept of ‘alliances’.  An alliance becomes based in idealism when, for example, one state will destroy itself out of fidelity to another.

2. Israel has a dangerous influence on the US’s Middle-east policy.This will invariably lead the US to a confrontation with regional and bordering hegemons like Iran and Russia. This influence is extraordinary insofar as US policy seems to be directed by a foreign state (Israel). It is extraordinary because a lack of sovereign control over foreign policy is typically seen in thedependency model and is normal for weaker states subject to control by stronger states. The US is widely understood as a powerful state, so it is extraordinary in this abnormality, that its policy would be controlled by a foreign state.

The present situation

Recent statements by US officials and candidates for office are indeed not only subjectively obnoxious but also objectively illegal by the standards of international law.

Fortunately this posturing – while serving a predictable and convenient political purpose that supports spending on the military industrial complex, and distracts from ongoing race and class related social crises in the US – would actually result in catastrophic defeat for the Empire in the Syrian theatre, if words were translated into actions.

Oddly, US media attempts to paint Russia’s publicly stated aim as if it is a conspiracy; as if Russia is concealing its support for the legal institutions in Syria and only using its campaign against ISIS as a cynical cover for that.

But the Russian president has not only made this clear publicly within Russia, but went on US television on NBC’s 60 minutes and – when directly asked by the interviewer – confirmed that indeed Russia is working to buttress the recognized government of Syria.  These actions are entirely consistent with international law.

The US public has been largely led to take for granted that US activity outside of its own borders is categorically different in essence from those of other states.  In the sense that the US focuses most of its activities far outside of its natural sphere of influence (i.e. North America and the Caribbean), this is correct. Also, that the US undertakes its actions in contravention to international law and standing accords and agreements between states, it is also exceptional.

But the ideology of American exceptionalism changes how these ‘exceptions’ are understood within the US: rather than being viewed as problematic and evidence of a criminal system which stands outside of the norms of international law and as established by the international community, through various accords and standing bodies such as the UN – American exceptionalism is viewed as a providential right and an inherent good.

International Relations theory is the international standard ‘metric’ by which states understand each other and by which analysts understand states

 

 

The United States, more than any other country – perhaps uniquely – is the single state that repeatedly confuses the basic concepts and terms in IR and international law – creating an incoherent mess out of meaning, language, and internationally accepted standards. It combines and mixes phrases and meanings, which produces a meandering and self-referential combination of ‘mumbo-jumbo’ which categorically can only be described as discoherence.  It switches its own internal and implied meanings and definitions for the consensus ones.

For example, ‘legitimacy’ in International Relations deals with legality and a positive description of existing states, and not a normative one.  A state in the world can be for example one or almost any combination of these: theocratic, socialist, democratic, nationalist, military-government, republican, monarchical, communist, fascist, (and others).

The founding principles of international law and, for example, the UN recognize these both overtly and de facto in that governments of this type represent states which have standing at the UN.

Human rights is a factor both in international law and at the level of the UN.  However, it is important to understand here that in principle a ‘democratic state’ can violate human rights while a ‘fascist state’ can be seen to observe them. The concept of human rights is a normative one, and it is probably accurate to say that all states fail this standard to some extent and indeed violate them.  A state that has violated human rights is not a state that has lost legitimacy.

But ‘legitimacy’ in US language only refers to its friends and partners, and vaguely though very inconsistently refers to concepts of democracy, freedom, and human rights.  It is confused and inconsistent because it will refer to a democratic or republican semi-dictatorship type state (e.g Syria) that has probably abused human rights, as a dictatorship. Remember, the normative standard is very high and on a case-by-case basis.  But it will conclude therefore that the Syrian government is not legitimate, while simultaneously supporting democratic and monarchical human rights abusing states in the same region (e.g Israel and Saudi Arabia, respectively).

The United States uses international platforms to threaten other states and to communicate in this discoherent syntax to its own population.  But other states interpret their statements, indeed as threats, but ones which are not rational and instead based in this discoherence.

Russian President Putin made this point very clear last week at the UN when he said that the language used in the international arena should use terms that are clear, consistent, and transparent in their meaning:

Every term in international law and international affairs (relations) should be clear, transparent and have uniformly understood criteria. We are all different, and we should respect that. No one has to conform to a single development model that someone has once and for all recognized as the only right one. We should all remember what our past has taught us.

The US in the Middle-east acts as a Chauvinist, and irrational idealist state

These are the most dangerous, historically.  US policy in the middle-east is largely irrational from the perspective of a standard reading of classical ‘international relations’ (IR): from either a realist or idealist perspective. From these perspectives, there is little basis for intervention if the US does not want to face serious set-backs in the global arena, or if it does not want to create a global conflict which it is projected to lose.

Even within the framework of the US’s own ‘best interests’ defined realistically within the framework of a corporatist-capitalist Empire, it cannot be rationally justified from the perspective of ‘realist’ classical or basic IR theory.

While the dominating US policy in the middle-east is rooted in idealism, it is not rational.   It cannot be justified within the classical or basic IR category ofrational idealism.  Also, its policies, whether rational or irrational, are not rooted in an idealism based in conceptions of peace, mutual respect, and stability – but rather in conceptions of domination, chauvinism, exceptionalism, and the fetishization of military solutions.

In practical terms, this means that its self destruction will not be the result of trying to save the world, but as a result of trying to dominate it.  In realist terms, these motivations are secondary considerations.  What is significant is its irrationalism. Its motivations (domination) and justification (chauvinism as ‘American exceptionalism’) will however have an effect on international perceptions of the US which will have a material consequence in the willingness of other states to aid the US in the aftermath of its self-immolation.

Conclusively its policies can properly belocated in the realm of irrational idealism. The US cannot interact constructively with other world players because it either employs or pretends to employ an “inherent bad faith model in international relations and political psychology”.  It justifies its own irrationality on the basis that its opponents are irrational and implacably hostile.  It is a continuation of the orientation of John Foster Dulles.  It was the Dulles-based theories of nuclear brinkmanship and the bad faith model which almost ended life on earth during the Cuban Missile Crisis.

When both Putin and Obama delivered their statements a few days ago to the UN, they specifically referred to the language and theories of IR.  For these reasons and more, it is important to have some grasp of what this international language is all about.

Background and relevancy

It is important to understand that despite whatever reasons are given for any action, US plans are developed by experts not only in economics, media/information and military – but are summarized and standardized in their presentation by experts in IR.

In other words, despite what the layman believes or thinks are the reasons for decisions (and these opinions may be frequently right) at the level of US policy formulation, the language and theories of IR are used to explain, justify, and develop the actual plans.

IR was founded a hundred years ago in England by David Davies at the University of Wales, and within five years gained traction and was founded by Philip Noel-Baker at the London School of Economics.

IR is more than diplomacy, and more than agreements.  In the US school, it also involves security studies, geopolitics, and geostrategy – the last two being the European schools of German origin and closest to and most compatible to the US school of ‘IR’. Frederick Lewis Schuman was the first American to take the German school of ‘War Geo-politics’ and make and found the US school of Geostrategy.

Superficially, Geopolitics directly infers a relationship to spatial geographic reality, and IR does not at least in its name. But IR must also incorporate the same spatial realities when translating any general theory into a specific set of policies or recommendations.  Geostrategy relies heavily on real, actual, existing, material factors and tends to focus more on military matters, and as such is most compatible with realist theory in IR. After all, there are no such things as normative bullets, only real ones.

Indeed, there are a number of IR theories, which are often categorized.  Over the course of the last century, any number of categories have been developed and specialized.  While there is little agreement between the experts on the proper categorization of the theories, to generalize it is useful as an introduction to view all of these as either based in idealism (normative)  or realism (positive).  Classical IR theory, as with geopolitics and geostrategy, uses ‘States’, typically nation-states in the Westphalian model, as the basic subject and actor.

Basically, idealism or normative theories explain that states either are or should be motivated by ideas which relate to their core principles, and either do or ought to interact with the world in a way which furthers the vision-based interests of these ideals. States may act rationally in pursuit of these ideals (they may have a realistic assesment of their limitations), or in other theories the idealism itself prevents rational execution of such policies (such as in irrationalism theory).

Idealism therefore combines normative and positive explanations for the world: idealism can be used to describe the actual policies of a state as ideal-driven, or can be used to proscribe policies for a state – that they should be ideal-driven. That they ‘should be’ ideal driven often pertains to theories about peace and stability.  However, other ideals may relate to the idealization of war and conquest.

Realism theory explains that states either are consciously or unconsciously – when successful – motivated by a realist assessment which places the economic, material, strategic needs either ahead of others (i.e. normative ones) or does not concern itself with others. Realism theory also understands that states can be driven by ideals – but would tend to view the resulting policies of those others states as tending to be irrational more so than rational.

By and large, most of these theories can be viewed either or both as competing theories or complimentary theories. Today there are dozens of sub-fields ranging from post-structuralism to neo-realism, and more.  There are also many combinations of both realism and idealism, and other categories still which reject the utility of the categories. Others moreover suggest that what are believed to be new categories were not previously contemplated in the realism/idealism schema.

Application to the middle-east

To generalize, the framework of US activities in the US will either be justified and/or explained in terms of realism and/or idealism.

Both Bush and Obama have used the language of realism and idealism – often in the same speeches or statements – to justify US activities in the middle-east.

For example, justifications for military action or economic sanction rooted in human rights and democracy – outside of the narrow international, consensus understanding – are appeals to idealism.

Justifications for military actions or sanctions rooted in security concerns, i.e. terrorism – are appeals to realism or idealism.  They are idealist and even irrational when the threats are assessed by the wants, stated aims, nature, verbiage, or tone of parties issuing threats to the US as opposed to their actual capacity to project force.

Justifications for military actions or sanctions rooted in commitment to allies may be rooted either in idealism or realism.

In realist theory, overtures to idealist reasoning, when used by states practicing realism, are seen as pragmatic methods of gaining popular support, by appealing to emotions like altruism over reason and rational self interest. In that sense, in realism theory, overtures to idealism when used by a realist state are seen as cynical and not really believed by those promoting them.

But in actually looking at either the classical model of idealism or realism, the US is not behaving in accordance with the rational versions of either one.  We can see this clearly.

From idealism, there are a number of inconsistencies which reveal that the US is not acting from the perspective of rational idealism:

1.) The US has nowhere established the sort of stable, developmentally oriented, bastions of human rights and democracies which they claimed were their idealist motivations from the Bush II administration onward.

The countries they have attacked were stable, developmentally oriented states that were secular, and scored high on the UN human development index.

2.) The US has not attacked countries much farther from its own stated idealist vision – such as Bahrain, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, or Jordan.  These countries rank lower in the above listed categories, and are operated as monarchies that suffer from much greater disparities in the overall distribution of wealth, resources, and rights.

From realism – we can see two standards, neither of which are actually realized through the actions taken.

1.) From a realist security perspective of counter-terrorism – the realist justification that was given simultaneously with the idealist one at the same time – US activity has caused less stability and has emboldened terrorism.  Even if we consider that terrorism is used as a US tool for destabilization, the utility of destabilization as a strategy is itself highly problematic in achieving the US’s long term position.

The destruction of institutions and destabilization, the internecine, intra-tribal, and religious divisions which the US fostered and manipulated in Iraq and Syria in the process of meeting their stated aims, only resulted in the kinds of social conditions which give rise to ‘extremism’.

2.) From  a realist perspective of regional hegemony, the US also does not meet its hegemonic goals in its creation of failed states in the Middle-East.  It has created the spectacle of power vacuums and appearance of instability which by themselves would be considered well developed, but for their obvious consequences.

Why?  US regional hegemony in the Middle-East is rationally concerned chiefly with access to resources such as oil and natural gas.  The US does not exist in the Middle-East, and in the abstract has relative freedom to choose its partners and allies.  We are often told that Iran is the US’s main target in the Middle-East – which is accurate – and we proceed to ascribe realism-based interpretations to the US’s stated goals, policies and actions.  But why, in the first place, is Iran the US’s target?

While Iran has publicly disapproved of the US’s failure to recognize Palestine or to act to pressure its regional allies to respect the human rights of Palestinians – in pure realist terms, Palestine is not a primary concern for Iran which supersedes all others.  Iran  has shown a willingness to tackle joint ‘problems’ with the US – the two most recent examples historically being first in Yugoslavia and second in Iraq.

A strong Iran as a US ally is the only power that could check Russian power in the Caucuses without the US over-depending on Turkey.  Such an agreement would also aid in Afghanistan, and could work to frustrate any Russian, Chinese, or Indian attempts to broker a potent reconciliation of nuclear Pakistan and nuclear India.

A genuinely realist policy for the US would necessarily be aimed at competing with Russia and China for an improved standing with Iran, and would be aimed at steering Iran, Turkey, Syria, and Egypt to cooperate to jointly construct the infrastructure required for extraction and transfer of natural resources.

Indeed, part of this realism is seen at work in the de-escalation of tensions with Iran. Rapprochement with Iran, and getting it to develop one of several of the pre-sanctions pipeline plans which either (or both) involved Syria and Turkey was critical to this.

In a brief glimpse of rational realism, John Kerry explained to the congress that the failure of the Iran deal would have a very negative impact on the stability of the US dollar.  This was indeed an accurate assessment.

But we continue to hear or read that the main US threat to the US in the middle-east region is Iran.

We have read and heard this so many times, that subsequent threats or actions taken against Iran – and its ally Syria – are taken for granted as being realist approaches to hegemony building or maintenance.

But Iran’s position indeed is not objectively problematic for the US.  In terms of energy markets, they are a required player for any number of US plans – whether this is Nabucco, as Azerbaijan cannot have a sustainable policy which is simultaneously at odds with both Russia and Iran, or the Southern Corridor, or the Persian pipeline (or similar).

US’s policy, which cannot be explained either in realist or rational idealist terms forces us to look at how where this irrational idealism stems from. It tends to mirror dependency theory, but as stated above, it is extraordinary that a relatively weak state such as Israel could have this kind ‘controlling’ relationship with a strong state such as the US.

This leaves us to focus on other facts which we have not yet considered.

It is true that Iran’s claim to hegemony has increased as a result of the US destruction of the Ba’athist state in Iraq.  In particular, it has increased in a westward direction, towards the Levant.  Its influence in Lebanon with Hezbollah or through the March 8th Alliance, and in Syria with the government, has grown.

We must move past the ‘inherent bad faith model in international relations and political psychology’ projected onto Iran.  This is necessary because Iran has shown itself to be a pragmatic player. Once we get past this we are left with an unanswered question.

In what way does Iran’s growing power threaten the US’s influence in the region?

It does not.  It threatens Israel’s.

The US’s Irrational Idealism is Israel’s Realism

Israel through AIPAC, and also through Neo-cons, controls much of US policy formulation at the level of think tanks and advocacy, and implementation at the congressional and executive level, for the Middle-East.

IR theory indicates that the US is not acting rationally, and is acting out of a professed and irrational fidelity to Israel. Strangely, the US acts rationally in other areas; which is seperate distinction as discussed above from questions surrounding ‘right’ or ‘wrong’.

The alliance is irrational because the US is weaker and more vulnerable as a result, and is pushed to take actions in the region against both regional (Iran) and neighboring (Russia) hegemons.  The US is not projected to emerge successful in these confrontations in terms of its own sovereign interests. It will result in a real (and not simulated) power vacuum which is aimed at rolling back Iranian hegemony in favor of Israeli.

The aim is likely create a single and large Israeli presence, whether in state form or informal forms, situated between a friendly Saudi Arabia and Turkey.  The plan to achieve this is popularly termed the ”Yinon Plan”.

The term “Yinon Plan” refers to an Article published in February 1982 in the journal Kivounim (“Guidance” in Hebrew), published by the World Zionist Organization, based in Jerusalem. The article, entitled A Strategy for Israel in the 80’s, is authored by Oded Yinon, an analyst and former official of the Israeli Foreign Ministry. It considers that it is in the interests of the Jewish state to foster the creation of a Greater Israel in the collapse of the Arab world.  To achieve this will mean the creation of weak and mutually antagonistic mini-states  too divided to effectively oppose it.

Of course this term reflects a more public understanding of one of several possible or likely Israeli plans.  While it is most definitely referred to something else within military and intelligence circles in Israel, it is also likely to generally reflect this basic concept of creating a large hegemonic sphere”From the Brook of Egypt to the Euphrates.”

A nearly identical plan was submitted to Benjamin Netanyahu titled A Clean Break : A New Strategy for Securing the Realm.  This Israeli policy paper was written by Richard Perle and the study group on “A new Israeli strategy towards the year 2000” (Institute for Advanced Strategic and Political Studies) which also included James Colbert, Charles Fairbanks Jr., Douglas Feith, Robert Loewenberg, Jonathan Torop, David Wurmser and Meyrav Wurmser. It was also published again in the  journal the Institute for Advanced Strategic and Political Studies, in July 2006.  It argues both for a break with the philosophy behind the Oslo Accords and for a regional hegemonic plan which mirrors the Yinon plan.

After obtaining a genuine regional hegemonic status not reliant on US support, Israel will be well positioned to resolve any differences with prior global opponents, even along win-win lines. It will place Israel chiefly in control of the water and energy resources in all the lands west of Iran.  To do this also means breaking Iran into about five weaker and manageable states.  This will involve the devolution of the Iranian identity into its constituent parts.

The US will have mostly spent its capacity to project into the middle-east, and instead will grapple with maintaining its NATO hegemony over Europe.  Other results from Israel’s realist strategy are difficult to project, and involve too many then evolving variable to accurately project or succinctly list.

What is clear is that without Israeli control over the US’s middle-east policy, it would still be an Empire oriented power which would employ a combination of idealist rhetoric and realist strategic planning to maintain.  But its policy in the middle-east region would be quite different, and would likely see a different alignment of powers aimed at checking Russia and China.

Along its current course, the US is likely to lose to the Syria-Iran-Russia alliance in the region.  If Chinese efforts figure in these defeat is certain.

Israel’s realist goals may ultimately be poorly conceived, but they are probably rooted in the realist school.  Conversely, if there is any religious fundamentalism – idealism – influencing Israel, in its desire to create a larger Israel which mirrors the mythical ‘promised land’, they are using rational methods to obtain it.

Israel is facing a series of internal crises and numerous analysts have indicated that on its present course it is an unsustainable project.  Israel has probably correctly assessed that its survival will be based upon its expansion; this means a weaker Iran.  If they use overtures to myth and religion to obtain this, it would be considered a rhetorical use of idealism to obtain a realist-determined position.

In connection with this, Israeli analysts have also properly surmised that the developing trend globally is multipolarity. Because the US is the only guarantor of Israel in the region, it means that presently Israel depends on the US to exist.  But multipolarity means a decreased role for the US, which itself threatens Israel.  If the US is projected continue to lose its former (and short-lived) uni-polar status, then it makes sense for Israel to attempt to steer the still useful US military into a target of its own choosing.  Time is running out.

Israel’s work with Saudi Arabia and Turkey through the ISIS project has been an invaluable component of this general plan for Greater Israel. Israel’s control of the US policy has effectively made it the prime broker between other regional states like Turkey or the KSA and the US.

The remaining questions surround whether the US will rationally disengage and continue its officially stated surrender (“deconfliction talks”) of the Syria position to Russia, and continue its new agreement with Iran, or if the Israel lobby will succeed in pushing the US towards an irrational cataclysm that breaks its spine on the rock of Syria.

Israel’s crocodile tears as Putin outmaneuvers and neutralizes Netanyahu in brilliant strategic move

Comment: This is a rare moment in the geopolitical world where there is cause for celebration. When the illegal and murderous actions of a country, along with its psychopathic leaders are being restricted and neutralized, we think there may actually be justice in this world after all. Read on and observe how an Israeli journalist describes the current “bleak” situation for Israel, and how from now on they will have to be extremely careful before engaging in illegal military operations against other sovereign countries, otherwise they may find themselves being mauled by the Russian bear.

Image

Israel will think twice and more before it decides to initiate air force attacks inside Syria – as it did at least 10 times in the past three years.

A gun placed on stage in the first act must be fired by the last one. This axiom is attributed to Russian playwright Anton Chekov – the same one whose work Minister of Culture Miri Regev proudly declared she has never read.

Even though it was clear that the extensive military buildup by the Russia Army in Syria was bound to eventually lead to military intervention in the civil war, the first Russian air strikes yesterday were received with a bit of surprise. Yesterday morning the Russia Duma (parliament) approved the use of military force – as if President Vladimir Putin really needed their approval – and yesterday by noon missions were executed near the towns of Homs, Hama, and Latakiya. According to Western sources, the Russians targeted positions of rebel groups opposing the regime of President Bashar Assad, including factions supported by the US. The Russian Ministry of Defense, on the other hand, said that its air force targeted ISIS.

Nevertheless, one can assume that Russia is trying to create a division of labor that is not to the liking of the US and its Arab and Western coalition partners assembled to fight on two fronts: the Assad regime and Islamic State.

The Russian logic is that the US-led coalition will attack ISIS and Russia will attack the rest of the rebel groups. Regardless of whether such a division will be in place de facto, one conclusion is emerging: the big winner of the new situation is Assad and his failed regime.

There are already indications that his self-confidence is growing due to the newly formed supportive coalition of Russia, Iran, and Hezbollah and partially the Iraqi government to save his neck.

The big losers are the US, its Arab and Western allies, and Israel, despite reports that Russia informed Washington and Jerusalem in advance of its air missions. Israel is among the losers, notwithstanding boasting by Defense Minister Moshe Ya’alon on Tuesday that Israel doesn’t need to coordinate its actions in Syria with Russia. Really? If so, then why did Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu himself travel with the chief of staff and head of military intelligence to meet in Moscow two weeks ago? And why is the deputy chief of staff traveling next week to meet with his Russian counterpart? Of course, to have talks on “deconfliction” to avoid accidental clashes between Israel and the Russia armies.

Yet regardless what Israeli officials say, they will not be able to conceal the fact that Israel’s previous unstoppable freedom of action and maneuverability in Syria is now restricted.

Comment: A bummer, isn’t it? Until now Israel could violate Syrian space whenever it wanted to. But now here come those pesky Ruskies with their advanced military airplanes and fancy S-400 air defence system, and suddenly the IDF can no longer do whatever it wants. Oh, the chutzpa!As Russian sources indicate, both Israel and the U.S. have very good reason to be upset:

On Friday, 2 October, Saudi news published an interview with former U.S. Colonel Jack Jacobs, who announced that the United States can’t stop the Russians in Syria, as Russia has established a “closed zone” over it. This means that any military aircraft entering the zone of hostilities can be immediately shot down as a threat to the Russian Air and space forces.

American sources claim that the Russian Federation, with the assistance of deployed land-based air defense systems, has established a closed zone over the entire airspace of Syria, while in addition, the approaches to the Russian airbase in Latakia are also closed from the sea to a distance of 100-250 km from the coast to the fleet of the Russian Federation, which is now conducting exercises in the Mediterranean sea.

Thus, the U.S. and its allies can’t even carry out reconnaissance on the forces of the Russian Federation.

A source in the military circles of the American contingent in Turkey reported that NATO aircraft, trying to get close to the forces of the Russian Federation, were illuminated by radar, while the source of illumination could not even be identified.

“The Russians have made it understood, that they can see everything, and not to get anywhere closer, or be shot down”, – noted the American military.

“Frankly speaking, we were surprised by the air defense system of Russia. We can’t even assume which systems are deployed there. We are encountering them for the first time, most likely there are the latest complexes S-400. I have no more clues” – said Colonel Jack Jacobs.

Bloomberg also writes about the creation of the Russian no-fly zone over Syria, citing senior American military. So, the commander of the NATO forces in Europe General Philip Breedlove stated that the new military infrastructure of Russia in Syria, including the air defense systems, de facto creates a no-fly zone.

According to Breedlove, Russia has created over Syria a “sphere of denial”, which American planes can’t enter.

It doesn’t mean necessarily that the IDF will not be able to respond in the future – as it did earlier this week to shells or rockets mistakenly or intentionally launched from Syria or to prevent terrorist attempts to penetrate the Golan Heights.

But surely Israel’s pulling the trigger will not be so easy from now on. Israel will think twice and more before it decides to initiate air force attacks inside Syria – as it did at least 10 times in the past three years.

Yet the question of what Putin’s real goals are and what his grand strategy in Syria is, if he has one, puzzles Israeli and Western experts. All of them agree, however, that on the surface it seems that Putin hopes to achieve the following aims: to help Assad to consolidate his regime, even if it means allowing him to control only his “little Syria” fiefdom – or by a different name his “Alawaitestan;” to ensure Russian access to warm water ports in the Mediterranean; to safeguard Russia’s last bastion and stronghold (Syria) in the Middle East; to enable Putin to conduct a confrontational foreign policy against the US; to leverage Syria as a bargaining chip for Russia to enhance agreements across the board – Ukraine versus Syria, for example – between world powers and to divide parts of the world to spheres of influence and interest, as it used to be during the cold war era; to contain ISIS – Putin may not care that the Islamic State controls chunks of Syria and Iraq, but he doesn’t want it to advance in the direction of his back yard – the former Soviet- Muslim republic in Central Asia; to avoid sending “boots on the ground” to fight in Syria – for this purpose Putin has Hezbollah, Syrian and even Iranian- sponsored Shiite mercenaries to be used as cannon folder.

Comment: It’s very entertaining to observe how pathological minds try to assign their own intentions and motivations to others. Contrary to Israel, the U.S. and their allies, the Russians are quite honest about their reactions to various events and occurrences, and give clear warnings to anyone who can take a hint, and tell the truth a lot. But that is difficult to parse by psychopathic minds that are always looking for the double-cross or taking the pejorative view.

Russians tell the truth, just not too much, and keep their cards close to their chest.

Image

Despite being an authoritative ruler, he doesn’t want Russians to be returned in body bags to military funerals across Russia. He knows the lessons of the Soviet-era war in Afghanistan.

From all of the above, it is also clear that the bloody civil war that has already caused the death of more than 250,000 Syrians will be prolonged because of Russian involvement, at least in the short term. Still, one should not rule out the possibility that in the long run Russia’s entry may enhance the chance of a political-diplomatic settlement in which Assad will remain in power for a transition period and eventually step down.

Against the background of negative ramifications on Israel’s security posture, there is a possible positive side, although it is not politically correct to express it: the continuation of the war benefits Israel by enhancing its standing as an unmatched regional power, while Hezbollah and Iran are weakened by their involvement.

Comment: Even here the Israeli media can’t get its facts straight. As it turns out, Hizb’allah have been involved in Syria for some time. In fact, it appears that they were withdrawn from engagements with ISIS just prior to the commencement of Russia’s intervention. Hizb’allah is probably concerned about the Israelis and Saudis using the “jihadis” to bring the war to Lebanon so, like Russia, they’ve been “fighting them there so as not to have to fight them here”.

SCOTTNET – Israel’s crocodile tears as Putin outmaneuvers and neutralizes Netanyahu in brilliant strategic move

ISRAEL, HERE COMES THE END updated: Bibi Exposed !

US and Ally Lead ISIS Coalition Exposed

“US led ISIS coalition!” ~ John Joseph Hanna fbdown net

  • Published on Oct 2, 2015

John Joseph Hanna for once tells the truth. As a result – VACANCY – MEDIA WHORE THAT DOESN’T SPILL THE BEANS REQUIRED! US led ISIS Coalition. Marvelous. We’re not fighting terrorism. We’re trying to create it in order to give ourselves an excuse to crush all the countries Israel doesn’t like! For more – http://gmmuk.com/


UN Rolls Out Agenda 2030 “Global(ist) Goals” – #NewWorldNextWeek

 Real Clear Politics

The Best Advice Dr. Maya Angelou Has Ever Given and more.

 Republished on 10-02-2015  OWN

Dr. Maya Angelou’s wisdom has inspired countless people around the world, but what does she say is the best advice she’s ever given? Find out what it is and to whom she gave it. Plus, get the best advice Dr. Angelou ever received.

A Walk with Mooji Baba – Kissed From Inside

Published on Jul 30, 2015

It was here, the heart, that’s what I was searching for. And now this is the message I share with everybody, this is what you are looking for, the completeness of the pure self…

CrowHouse DVD's can be

Mooji – Kiss from Within defined. Click thru:

Umpqua Oregon Shooting 13 Dead, Is One of Worst School Shootings

Opinion:

What are we teaching our kids that they grow up to be mass murderers ?

I don’t know what you are teaching your children at home, but the routine bombing of innocent or not men, woman and children devalues their understanding of life. War teaches war, hate begets hate, I suggest that we practice and teach PEACE !


The Gunman Told Students to Stand Up & State Their Religion

Published 4:18 pm EDT, October 1, 2015 Updated 5:12 pm EDT, October 1, 2015 Comment

A mass shooting has been reported at Umpqua Community College in Roseburg, Oregon, the Douglas County Sheriff’s Office says.

Oregon Attorney General Ellen Rosenblaum said on MSNBC that at least 13 people, including the gunman, were killed in the shooting. Oregon State Police have said that as many as 20 others were injured at UCC.

Umpqua Community College Shooting Public Safety Response

These are the worst shootings in U.S. history:


Michigan Bath School Disaster – 1927

In 1927, Andrew Philip Kehoe, a farmer, went on a rampage in Michigan, killing 44 and injuring 58 people. He detonated a series of explosives around Bath Township, Michigan, including near an elementary school with children ages 7 through 12. He detonated dynamite during a struggle with the superintendent, killing himself in the process.


Virginia Tech Shooting – 2007

The Virginia Tech shooting that killed 37 people and wounded 17 others still remains one of the worst in U.S. history. The terrible crime took place on April 16, 2007 at Virginia Tech university.


Sandy Hook Elementary – 2012

The elementary school shooting in Newtown, Connecticut, killed 20 children and six staff on December 14, 2012. The video and photos of children being evacuated from the school still haunt people today and leave many wondering why anyone would have done such a crime.


University of Texas Shooting – 1966

On August 1, 1966, Charles Whitman first murdered his wife and mother, and then killed 14 people and injured 32 others at the University of Texas at Austin. The shooter was hard to take out because he did the shootings from the university’s clock tower.


Umpqua Community College – 2015

The horrific shooting at Umpqua Community College has left 13 people dead, including the gunman, and more than 20 injured.


Columbine Massacre – 1999

The Columbine high school massacre occurred on April 20, 1999, killing 12 students, 1 teacher, and injuring 21 in Columbine, Colorado. The massacre sparked a debate on gun control and violence in video games. The shooters had also planted bombs and other explosive devices around the school.


Red Lake Senior High School – 2005

On March 21, 2005, a shooter targeted Red Lake Senior High School in Red Lake, Minnesota on an Indian reservation. Seven people were killed, after the shooter killed his grandfather and his grandfather’s companion. Five people were injured.


Okios University – 2012

On April 2, 2012, a Korean Christian college, Oikos University, in Oakland, California, was the site of a terrible mass shooting that left seven dead. A former student who was angry at being expelled was the shooter.


Isla Vista, California Shooting – 2014

On May 23, 2014, six people were killed and 14 were injured in Isla Vista, California, near the University of California, Santa Barbara. The shooter committed suicide. The killings included three stabbings at the shooter’s apartment, three shootings outside a sorority house, and random shootings at pedestrians near the university. The shooter had written a 107,000-word manifesto before the shooting.

Umpqua Community College Shooting: 5 Fast Facts You Need to Know

A gunman killed 12 people and wounded several others in a shooting at Umpqua Community College in Roseburg, Oregon, authorities say. He was killed by police.

Click here to read more

The Shadow Government Blackmails Everyone (Why Voting Doesn’t Matter)

10/01/2015

Even if you ignore the immorality of statism and the tyranny of the majority, anyone who believes that voting actually matters is simply ignorant of the deep state and how it uses its intelligence apparatus to monitor and blackmail everyone in a position of political power. sElection 2016 will change nothing.

SHOW NOTES:
Top Secret Service official urged release of unflattering information about congressman

Whistleblower: NSA wiretapped Obama, Petraeus, Alito, others

Sibel Edmonds Blows the Whistle on Government Blackmailing

Sibel Edmonds podcast on the Hastert case – Part I / Part II / Part III

President Obama – A quick before and after on spying

Sometimes when I hear public officials speaking out in defense of NSA spying, I can’t help thinking, even if just for a moment, “what if the NSA has something on that person and that’s why he or she is saying this?”

How to take down a tyrant without firing a shot.

Revolution: An Instruction Manual

Image
When it hits the fan…I mean REALLY hits the fan in a permanent kind of way, the most likely outcome is death.

That’s not pretty, and I’m well aware of it. I always try to be positive and optimistic, because for me, preparedness is the ultimate act of optimism, but sometimes we have to look at the numbers and face some things that are pretty terrifying. The first reality check is that some research says that only 3 million Americans are preppers. That means that 315 million Americans are not preppers. Some experts predict that within 30 days of the power going out, 50% of Americans will be dead. Within a year, an astounding 90% of the population will be dead.

Do you want to survive such a scenario? Do you want your children to survive? When you read this information, you have to realize that it’s very unlikely that you and your family would live through a grid failure of a year or more unless you are proactive and develop a preparedness plan that takes all of these causes of death into consideration.

%d bloggers like this: