posted 08-24-2003 05:09 AM            

I have to confess. The outrageous in-your-face behavior of the neocons finally got to me - as Armageddon approaches, after seeing more and more references to it (albeit usually wacky), I recently downloaded the Protocols of the Elders of Zion. Guiltily, mind you, as if it were Mein Kampf or porno. I bet you haven't dared (or bothered) to read it.

So, what is this best-selling political tract of the 20th century, the reading of which carried the death penalty in Stalinist Russia, lauded by the likes of Henry Ford and Winston Churchill, and then loudly condemned for the past 60 years since it was briefly declared an anti-Semitic forgery (in a Swiss court in 1935 overturned by the Appeals Court in 1937)?

The bile aside, it is in fact an series of 24 mostly articulate, well-argued lectures outlining a plan for world capitalist domination, with sharp political and social analysis, lots of Machiavelli and a Marxian sophistication in its understanding of capitalism and historical processes. Briefly, it outlines a plan of world conquest by first establishing world government by consent. As with any brilliant political analysis, it has been denounced, dismissed, misinterpreted and banned. And made very good use of by those lusting for world power.

What immediately struck me was that with a little dusting off, abridging and updating, it could easily be the handbook of the neocons. With the wonders of modern computers, you can download a free copy from the Internet, cleanse it of anti-Semitism by replacing "fellow Jews" with "neocons" and make sense of what's happening in the world today.

Mysterious origins? Not really

Though its origins are still unknown, it was clearly inspired by the French revolution and its aftermath, the then-popular Masonic order, and most of all the nascent 19th century Zionist movement. All that we know is that it was written in France and brought to Russia, supposedly in 1884. It first appeared in print in St Petersburg in 1903, but reached the West only after the Russian revolution. It caused an immediate sensation, originally crudely interpreted as foretelling the Bolshevik revolution as the crucial link in a Jewish conspiracy to rule the world. As such, it was admired by the likes of Churchill and Ford, both confirmed anti-communists and anti-Semites.

True, it has the prescience to allow for an anti-capitalist revolution on the way to its final goal, but there's nothing even vaguely socialist in it. It's firmly founded on a plan for capitalist domination through Jewish control of international finance and just happened to appear at the very moment of the founding of the Zionist movement, with its goal of establishing as soon as possible a Jewish state in Palestine, backed by powerful worldwide Ashkenazy Jewish economic interests.

It's as if an especially ruthless and well-read 19th c Zionist, inspired by the Rothschilds and other great Jewish financiers of the time, wrote it or most of it, as I am sure is the case. Really, it reads as if it were written by the Jungian shadow of the likes of Zionism's founder, Theodore Herzl, or any of Israel's notables from Ben Gurion to Ariel Sharon. Its anti-goyim callousness certainly indicate it was not written for public consumption, and after Hitler, it was relegated to the Forbidden Shelf in ALL libraries along with Mein Kampf and naked bottoms. But it is very hard to believe that it is a spoof or a mere provocation, as it is just too impressive in detail and understanding of the logic of late 19th c capitalism.

Did Hitler read it? I bet the Nazis read it carefully. They certainly followed much of its advice, from how to use the press, to how to manipulate both politicians and the masses in consolidating their political hold. It's also clear why destruction of the Jews became Hitler's tragic obsession. His New World Order (NWO) would have to exclude a group even remotely connected with such a scheme for world domination. As the neocons warn today: "You are either with us or against us."

Many paths - but they all lead to Rome

The trouble with the Protocols is that it has been interpreted since it was published to suit the prejudices of the moment. In pre-revolutionary Russia, it provided fuel for the already widespread Russian anti-Semitism. In post-WWI Europe and America, it provided fuel against the Russian revolution. In the post-WWII world, it became the Bible of American isolationists and racists who see the poor UN as the dreaded "World Government," backed by the Soviet Union and 3rd world revolutions. Now it is read by Muslims as proof of the conspiracy by US imperialism to destroy them.

Another problem is that there have been many variations on the theme of the NWO ever since the collapse of the Roman Empire. The French revolution and Napoleonic conquests, the Masonic lodges, imperial Germany and England all have had their own NWO fantasy. The Russian revolution was the most radical attempt at a NWO, and even can be distinguished for the large number of Jews who took part, but despite the fact that the Protocols was first published in Russia and strictly banned during the Soviet period, the Soviet experiment was not even remotely the final World Government of the Protocols, as it was anti-capitalist in its essence.

The red herring in it is of course 'Jewish', which is supposed to refer to a race. The Jews referred to in the Protocols are the European Ashkenazy Jews, who had been traditionally usurers and who were in the 19th century becoming increasing wealthy and part of the mainstream European culture. From them sprang the Zionists, who transformed a religion where God is to bring them to the 'promised land' someday into an active plan to seize Palestine based on their growing international economic and financial might. So it is this group that is the real inspiration behind the Protocols and not some amorphous Jewish RACE. Think of the authors as the neocons of the day. For by the 19th century, usury was the norm, and the rapid spread of capitalism meant that the Western world effectively became Jewish, as Marx put it, and adopted the Jewish idea of success.

Yet another problem. It is loudly dismissed as a forgery. Hello? It was anonymous, so how can it be a forgery. Who forged what? No wonder the Swiss Appeals Court threw the case out. In that case we can dismiss the Bible as a forgery. And who cares who wrote the Psalms anyway? They stand on their own merits, as does the Protocols stripped of a few provocative phrases here and there, which could have been slipped in by anyone.

You may well protest: "The Protocols attributes the conscious machinations of Jews to be behind all historical developments. I don't believe the Zionists are either so powerful, or so far-sighted." In answer: It's not necessary for our actions to be premeditated. The logic of world capitalism sweeps us along, whether we like it or not. Some players are more conscious (and ruthless) than others. They become the Herzls, the Wolfowitzes, the Sharons. The rest of us get swept along, either yielding to, or fighting the current: the Bushes and the Schwartzeneggers or the goyim. The Protocols (or its original, if it is indeed a forgery) was inspired by the new economic system sweeping the world, and composed by the 19th century equivalent of the neocons. It hasn't played itself out yet, just as capitalism hasn't played itself out. We ignore it at our peril.

Arise, ye prisoners of starvation?

Contrast the Zionist movement with the other great attempt at a NWO from the 19th century on -- the world socialist movement. It is far weaker, split by nationalism and hundreds of ideological splinters, and motivated by social justice, a far less competitive motivation that money, wealth and power-for-its-own-sake. The Protocols is quite clear about this: "Our triumph has been rendered easier by the fact that in our relations with the men whom we wanted we have always worked upon the most sensitive chords of the human mind, upon the cash account, upon the cupidity, upon the insatiability for material needs of man: and each one of these human weaknesses, taken alone, is sufficient to paralyze initiative, for it hands over the will of men to the disposition of him who has bought their activities." (I)

There is no fear of the dangerous effective of democracy: "The abstraction of freedom has enabled us to persuade the mob in all countries that their government is nothing but the steward of the people who are the owners of the country, and that the steward may be replaced like a worn-out glove. It is this possibility of replacing the representatives of the people which has placed them at our disposal, and, as it were, given us the power of appointment." (I)

Socialism never had a chance against this corrosive Machiavellianism, though, just in case, the Protocols had a plan: "The hour strikes when, not for the sake of attaining the good, not even to win wealth, but solely out of hatred towards the privileged, the lower classes of the goyim will follow our lead against our rivals for power, the intellectuals of the goyim." (IV) This is the only reference to the use of a revolt of the masses, which was seized upon to associate the Protocols with the Russian revolution. Rather slim pickings, and it reveals the strategy is to undermine the "intellectuals of the goyim", i.e., the socialist opposition to world capitalism.

On the contrary, the Russian revolution seemed to really shake the very foundations of the plan for world capitalist domination. Curiously in its first 30 years the SU had the Zionists split. Why? Well, no doubt partly because many rank-and-file Zionists were socialist by persuasion, truly wanted the SU to succeed and hoped for a socialist Israel as a bonus (Herzl's utopian novel depicts a socialist Israel). But for the Zionist fanatics of the Protocols, their fence-sitting was because achieving their own state was the main priority, and required the support of both the communist and capitalist camps.

And as for the softer versions of socialism which have surfaced occasionally in the West, their headway has always been kept well in check, and social democratic reforms were rolled back very easily after the collapse of the SU, via the tactics envisaged in the Protocols. So the plan of the Protocols should not be confused with the many variations on a socialist/ communist NWO.

If you can't beat 'em, join 'em

The Protocols also lauds "the successes we arranged for Darwinism, Marxism, Nietzscheism." (II) Why promote such radicals? Because of the "disintegrating importance these directives have had upon the minds of the goyim." Just how central to Marx's success these Zionists were is debatable.

But it's become clear to me that Zionists have penetrated and tried to control all the NWO fantasies, from left to right, to further their own cause. It is not surprise then that they have been at the center of the present neocon insurgency from the start. And as for the EU-as-NWO, Sharon even suggested Israel should join the EU since 'we share common ideals'. In spite of Israel's loathing for the UN, it is at the very heart of THAT beleaguered, clumsy organization too (with a stake in hand just in case, it can be argued). It has recently been revealed that Zionists are even involved with extreme right anti-Semitic movements in Europe and with the creation of Hamas. After all, anti-Semitism is the Zionist's best defense. "The Jewish group has thrived on oppression and on the antagonism it has forever met in the world." (Albert Einstein, Collier's Magazine, November 26, 1938)

True, anti-Semitism got out of control under Hitler and it even looked like it was touch-and-go for a while for the Ashkenazy Jews of Europe, but fascism was in turn destroyed by a capitalist-communist alliance, with Zionists at its heart, as the Protocols so brilliantly foretold: "For a time perhaps we might be successfully dealt with by a coalition of the goyim of all the world: but from this danger we are secured by the discord existing among them whose roots are so deeply seated that they can never now be plucked up." (VI) Divide and rule!

The Holocaust gave the fanatical Zionists their long-sought state, which allowed them to discard any socialist pretensions and nurture the capitalist-Zionist alliance essential to the goal of world domination. The defining moment is perhaps the triumph of the neocons under Reagan in the 1980s. The Zionists had consolidated their hold on American foreign policy under Democrat Carter, and were ready to make the alliance official under Republican Reagan. It is at this point that the very term Zionist and even Jew can be discarded. As I have argued elsewhere, 'We are all Jews now.' (http://www.dissidentvoice.org/Articles4/Jones_Palestine.htm)
And with the Bush coup in 2000, we all (for the present at least) have become neocons (or goyim). As the opposition grows weaker, with the shield of the Holocaust at the ready, the neocon-Zionist alliance has begun to act more and more brazenly to consolidate its hold on the world and destroy the last meaningful resistance - the Islamic world.

The ultimate trump card

Not only was the Holocaust and the way to defeat it foreseen in the Protocols, but, like the anti-Semitism that gave rise to it, it has been turned into the ultimate defense of the Zionist cause. A kind of perverse win-win situation for the Zionists.

It transformed important anti-Semites into Judeophiles overnight. While Churchill was an enthusiastic reader of the Protocols before WWII, he became an enthusiastic supporter of the foundation of Israel after, and shifted his anti-Semitism onto the Arabs. Stalin, also a confirmed anti-Semite, provided the key vote at the UN to approve the foundation of Israel and supplied crucial arms via Czechoslovakia to the beleaguered state, foolishly thinking he could ultimately manipulate. Ha, ha! Finally it became the linchpin in consolidating today's neocon-Zionist alliance, and a brilliant defense for all manner of Zionist crimes: "We can do anything to defend ourselves after the Holocaust!"

The icing on the cake is the impressive Holocaust museum which blends in tastefully with the Lincoln and Washington memorials in the heart of Washington, D.C. (Note: There is no museum to the Holocaust against the native peoples or the blacks.)

A crack in the wall?

While 'Old Europe' has made some noises about this lethal NWO, the governments are nonetheless beholden to it, and can do little but try to carve a slightly bigger piece of the pie. No, the only meaningful remaining resistance to the neocon-Zionist NWO is the as yet unbrainwashed goyim of the world - the peace movement and the Islamic world, strange bedfellows at best.

However, there are some disturbing ripples in the NWO waters. Bush/ Sharon have chosen the warpath, while the Soros branch, which includes Europe, wants a more peaceful transition. The reckless policies of the erstwhile "servile administrator" in Washington are quite possibly endangering the very economic foundation of the NWO. The Protocols foresees such chaos, though it presumes to be in control of it: "We shall soon begin to establish huge monopolies, reservoirs of colossal riches, upon which even large fortunes of the GOYIM will depend to such an extent that they will go to the bottom together with the credit of the States on the day after the political smash...." (VI)

Such a collapse of the present world financial system is not at all beyond the realm of possibility. And if it comes, it could take down the US government and the neocons with it. It is here that the PROTOCOLS begins to unravel. The Protocols assumes the corporate financial cabal controlling the world economy will be invited to take over bankrupt governments with their World Government, as indeed has been happening under the guise of IMF restructuring programs and more recently by direct invasion. But the bankrupt and invaded countries, such as Argentina, most of Africa, Afghanistan, Iraq for starters are proving to be problematic, more than the cabal can digest.

Maybe, just maybe, the neocons' gamble will trip them up before they reach the finish line and they will end up along side the despised GOYIM at the bottom. A switch to a gold dinar in the Muslim world and oil-euros for the rest would seriously endanger the NWO, as would a massive ecological disaster, natural or man-made.

The mild neocons (Soros etal) see this clearly and are scurrying to minimize collateral damage. Theirs is a strategy closer to the spirit of the Protocols - no overt wars, a careful amassing of power through education and the control of the press, no dangerous splits in the capitalist-Zionist alliance, achieving victory through financial and trade blackmail. Have a look at the Protocols yourself. It's all there.

So, are these cowboy jackboot high jinks a momentary glitch in the triumphal march to the neocon-Zionist paradise? Will a Howard Dean, urged on by Soros, put the out-of-control steamroller back on its proper path? Or has the Protocols played itself out? Is our present apocalyptic scenario instead a crack that gives us hope of emerging from this nightmarish plot?

Rational racism?

I don't know about the Elders, the Symbolic Snake, the actual killing off of the goyim, whether the line of King David will be re-established to rule the world, the importance of the Masons, or whether the French Revolution "was wholly the work of our hands". There's surprisingly little of such bile for a work of such notoriety, and it can be easily edited out so as not to distract from the sharp analysis. Perhaps it was added by an anti-Semite as a provocation. Who knows? As for the Masons, come to think of it, the popularity of them, the Yale Skull and Bones, and other such Monty-Pythonesque groups shows a stubborn inclination by would-be GOYIM leaders to voluntarily (i.e., consciously or unconsciously) make themselves part of a world conspiracy, however idiotic.

That's not so much the problem. The major flaw behind the logic of the Protocols is its basic premise - that there is a Jewish race. There is only one race - the human race. Just have a look at Israeli society if you think there is a racial basis to Judaism. But hey! Scientists are discovering that there are genes which are responsible for skin color, that define risk-takers or those susceptible to various diseases Maybe there's a gene for these would-be Elders of Zion. Perhaps the NY Times will post the following soon: The Zionist-neocons now welcome to their fold those who share their lust for capitalist world domination. All those with gene DN145, please sign up here. We are all equal before Mammon. MBA schools will go crazy.

The Masonic lodges, Skull and Bones fraternities, the Jewish 'race' itself are just foils in this march of world capitalism, gathering in like-minded wanabes as it makes its final push for total control. It is somehow fitting that the once reviled Jew should sit one day on the world's golden throne surrounded by his neocon minions. That is the Protocols' vision of the end of history. Eat your heart out Fukuyama!

posted 08-24-2003 04:49 PM            

The PNAC's papers I believe define the Neo-Con agenda...

posted 08-25-2003 08:36 AM            

a true constitutionalist would be all over the alabama judge/ten commandments issue...like Alan Keyes is...

posted 08-25-2003 10:05 AM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by theseeker:
that folks that call themselves conservatives


[Edited 1 times, lastly by theseeker on 08-25-2003]

---

Folks 'who call themselves conservatives' blindly support anyone with an (R) next to their name.
"I didn't leave them..they left me!" -Barry Goldwater in 1993 (explaining why the (R) party had kicked him out.)
Call yourself anything you please.
neo-cons are not conservatives!

* Though he died in 1973, Leo Strauss's influence probably began to be felt most keenly in the 1980s, right on through to today.

* Strauss, a German Jew, was entirely comfortable and even supportive of fascism, but left Germany in 1938 because of Nazism's rabid and brutal anti-Semitic focus. Strauss preferred what he called "universal fascism" which was a fascism that included Jews. One of Strauss's students, neo-con Michael Ledeen, has even referred to himself as a "universal fascist."

* Strauss was a philosopher, not a political scientist, who focused on the classics (esp. Plato) but who was infuenced by Germans who also influenced Hitler's thinking including Nietsche and Heidegger.

* A number of neo-cons, including Paul Wolfowitz and many others who populate the halls of the Pentagon and a good many Washington think tanks as well as the halls of academe across the country, studied under Strauss or his more prominent protogees such as Alan Bloom.

* Other prominent Straussians include William Kristol, Norman Podhoretz, Victor Davis Hanson (who seems to a primary influence of Donald Rumsfeld), Richard Perle, Daniel Pipes, Gary Schmitt the founder of PNAC, Abram Shulsky who runs the OSP at the Pentagon (the ones who came up with all that "proof" of WMD in Iraq, despite CIA protestations to the contrary), Robert BOrk, Clarence Thomas, Alan Keyes,William Bennett, and many others. (A complete list of Straussian students and followers would be quite a boon!)

* What is most pertinent about Strauss and his students and protogees is a set of principles which one can readily see operative in this administration. There are several articles that outline these principles very well. An understanding of what the Straussians believe is imperative to understand what is going on in this administration.

Leo Strauss' Philosophy of Deception http://www.alternet.org/story.html?StoryID=15935

Rule One: Deception

It's hardly surprising then why Strauss is so popular in an administration obsessed with secrecy, especially when it comes to matters of foreign policy. Not only did Strauss have few qualms about using deception in politics, he saw it as a necessity. While professing deep respect for American democracy, Strauss believed that societies should be hierarchical – divided between an elite who should lead, and the masses who should follow. But unlike fellow elitists like Plato, he was less concerned with the moral character of these leaders. According to Shadia Drury, who teaches politics at the University of Calgary, Strauss believed that "those who are fit to rule are those who realize there is no morality and that there is only one natural right – the right of the superior to rule over the inferior."

snip

Second Principle: Power of Religion

According to Drury, Strauss had a "huge contempt" for secular democracy. Nazism, he believed, was a nihilistic reaction to the irreligious and liberal nature of the Weimar Republic. Among other neoconservatives, Irving Kristol has long argued for a much greater role for religion in the public sphere, even suggesting that the Founding Fathers of the American Republic made a major mistake by insisting on the separation of church and state. And why? Because Strauss viewed religion as absolutely essential in order to impose moral law on the masses who otherwise would be out of control.

At the same time, he stressed that religion was for the masses alone; the rulers need not be bound by it. Indeed, it would be absurd if they were, since the truths proclaimed by religion were "a pious fraud." As Ronald Bailey, science correspondent for Reason magazine points out, "Neoconservatives are pro-religion even though they themselves may not be believers."

"Secular society in their view is the worst possible thing,'' Drury says, because it leads to individualism, liberalism, and relativism, precisely those traits that may promote dissent that in turn could dangerously weaken society's ability to cope with external threats. Bailey argues that it is this firm belief in the political utility of religion as an "opiate of the masses" that helps explain why secular Jews like Kristol in 'Commentary' magazine and other neoconservative journals have allied themselves with the Christian Right and even taken on Darwin's theory of evolution.

Third Principle: Aggressive Nationalism

Like Thomas Hobbes, Strauss believed that the inherently aggressive nature of human beings could only be restrained by a powerful nationalistic state. "Because mankind is intrinsically wicked, he has to be governed," he once wrote. "Such governance can only be established, however, when men are united – and they can only be united against other people."

Not surprisingly, Strauss' attitude toward foreign policy was distinctly Machiavellian. "Strauss thinks that a political order can be stable only if it is united by an external threat," Drury wrote in her book. "Following Machiavelli, he maintained that if no external threat exists then one has to be manufactured (emphases added)."

"Perpetual war, not perpetual peace, is what Straussians believe in," says Drury. The idea easily translates into, in her words, an "aggressive, belligerent foreign policy," of the kind that has been advocated by neocon groups like PNAC and AEI scholars – not to mention Wolfowitz and other administration hawks who have called for a world order dominated by U.S. military power. Strauss' neoconservative students see foreign policy as a means to fulfill a "national destiny" – as Irving Kristol defined it already in 1983 – that goes far beyond the narrow confines of a " myopic national security."

-----

Neocons Dance a Strauss Waltz http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Middle_East/EE09Ak01.html

snip

Kristol's father Irving, the godfather of neoconservatism who sits on the board of the American Enterprise Institute (AEI), where a number of prominent hawks, including former defense Policy Board chairman Richard Perle, are based, has also credited Strauss with being one of the main influences on his thinking.

While a New York Times article introduced readers to Strauss and his disciples in Washington, interest was further piqued this week by a lengthy article by The New Yorker's legendary investigative reporter, Seymour Hersh, who noted that Abram Shulsky, a close Perle associate who has run a special intelligence unit in Rumsfeld's office, is also a Straussian.

His unit, according to Hersh, re-interpreted evidence of Iraq's alleged links to Osama bin Laden's al-Qaeda terrorist network and possession of weapons of mass destruction to support those in the administration determined to go to war with Baghdad. The article also identified Stephen Cambone, one of Rumsfeld's closest aides who heads the new post of undersecretary of defense for intelligence, as a Strauss follower.

In his article, Hersh wrote that Strauss believed the world to be a place where "isolated liberal democracies live in constant danger from hostile elements abroad", and where policy advisers may have to deceive their own publics and even their rulers in order to protect their countries.

Shadia Drury, author of 1999's Leo Strauss and the American Right, says that Hersh is right on the second count but dead wrong on the first. "Strauss was neither a liberal nor a democrat," she said in a telephone interview from her office at the University of Calgary in Canada. "Perpetual deception of the citizens by those in power is critical because they need to be led, and they need strong rulers to tell them what's good for them.

"The Weimar Republic was his model of liberal democracy for which he had huge contempt," added Drury. Liberalism in Weimar, in Strauss's view, led ultimately to the Nazi Holocaust against the Jews.

Like Plato, Strauss taught that within societies, "some are fit to lead, and others to be led", according to Drury. But, unlike Plato, who believed that leaders had to be people with such high moral standards that they could resist the temptations of power, Strauss thought that "those who are fit to rule are those who realize there is no morality and that there is only one natural right, the right of the superior to rule over the inferior".

--------

From an admiring neo-con, Robert Locke:
Leo Strauss, Conservative Mastermind http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=1233

snip

The key Straussian concept is the Straussian text, which is a piece of philosophical writing that is deliberately written so that the average reader will understand it as saying one ("exoteric") thing but the special few for whom it is intended will grasp its real ("esoteric") meaning. The reason for this is that philosophy is dangerous. Philosophy calls into question the conventional morality upon which civil order in society depends; it also reveals ugly truths that weaken men’s attachment to their societies. Ideally, it then offers an alternative based on reason, but understanding the reasoning is difficult and many people who read it will only understand the "calling into question" part and not the latter part that reconstructs ethics. Worse, it is unclear whether philosophy really can construct a rational basis for ethics. Therefore philosophy has a tendency to promote nihilism in mediocre minds, and they must be prevented from being exposed to it. The civil authorities are frequently aware of this, and therefore they persecute and seek to silence philosophers. Strauss shockingly admits, contrary to generations of liberal professors who have taught him as a martyr to the First Amendment, that the prosecution of Socrates was not entirely without point. This honesty about the dangers of philosophy gives Straussian thought a seriousness lacking in much contemporary philosophy; it is also a sign of the conviction that philosophy, contrary to the mythology of our "practical" (though sodden with ideology and quick to take offense at ideas) age, matters.

Strauss not only believed that the great thinkers of the past wrote Straussian texts, he approved of this. It is a kind of class system of the intellect, which mirrors the class systems of rulers and ruled, owners and workers, creators and audiences, which exist in politics, economics, and culture.

----

Other articles:

The Strategist and the Philosopher
Alain Frachon and Daniel Vernet
Le Monde http://truthout.org/docs_03/042003H.shtml

The Philosopher http://www.boston.com/dailyglobe2/131/focus/The_Philosopher+.shtml

Philosopher's Ideas Nurture U.S. President's Warrior Class http://www.canada.com/vancouver/vancouversun/columnists/story.asp?id= 5D1C6095-82D2-4240-B136-758A552B5F91

posted 08-25-2003 05:36 PM            

Sharon Threatens Global Nuclear War
Exclusive to Rense.com
By Jeffrey Steinberg
Executive Intelligence Review www.larouchepub.com/eiw
6-28-2

If there is one nation on this planet that deserves to be described and dealt with as a rogue state, armed with weapons of mass destruction and intent on using them, it is Israel, under the terror reign of war criminal Ariel Sharon.

If this was a matter of assertion or conjecture in the past, statements coming out of top Israeli officials in the past days have eliminated any cause for hesitation. On June 26, the Israeli newspaper of record, Ha'aretz, cited two top Israeli space scientists, who declared that Israel now has the capacity to fire missiles at targets anywhere on earth. Prof. Moshe Gelman, head of the Asher Institute at Technion-Israel Institute of Technology, boasted to Ha'aretz that "From the moment the State of Israel has the capability to launch a satellite into orbit around the earth at a height of hundreds of kilometers, it established [its] capability to launch, by means of a missile, a payload to any location on the face of the earth."

Dr. Gelman's words were seconded by Avi Har-Even, the director-general of the Israeli Space Agency (ISA), which recently launched the Ofek 5 satellite, who told Ha'aretz's Amnon Barzilai that the Ofek 5 launch had two strategic objectives: providing Israel with an independent spy satellite capability to monitor military activities in targeted countries throughout the entire Near East. "The second involves Israel's launch capabilities."

Democratic Party Presidential candidate Lyndon LaRouche reacted strongly to the Israeli announcement about an ICBM capability. He characterized it as a direct threat by Ariel Sharon against any nation that attempts to interfere with Israel's mad drive for its "Greater Israel" permanent annexation of the West Bank and Gaza and the mass expulsion of the 3.5 million Palestinians living in those territories.

"Israel is threatening global thermonuclear war," LaRouche warned, and this is unacceptable. He called upon the international community to immediately make the entire Mideast a "denuclearized zone," by forcing Israel to dismantle its nuclear weapons arsenal. LaRouche characterized the announcement of the Israeli ICBM capability as a "phase-change" in a global strategic situation, already driven to the brink of war by the onrushing financial collapse and the June 25 speech by President George W. Bush, which gave Sharon a defacto American "green light" to take any action against the Palestinians which he deems necessary. NATO Officially Warned

The Israeli intent to use nuclear weapons was a topic of, at minimum, implicit discussion, at a June 26 Brussels behind-closed-doors meeting of NATO's North Atlantic Council, which was addressed by the current head of the Israeli Mossad, Ephraim Halevy.

According to the June 27 Ha'aretz, Halevy reported to the NATO officials that Mossad is convinced that Iran is developing intermediate and long range missiles, and "weapons-grade nuclear capabilities," as well as VX gas and biological weapons. As Ha'aretz's Amir Oren reported, Halevy asserted that "Israel cannot spare any effort to foil, prevent or delay the attainment of weapons of mass destruction by countries like Iran, Iraq, Syria and Libya." Pushing A New Regional War According to Israeli military historian Martin Van Creveld, who wrote that "Sharon's Plan Is to Drive Palestinians Across the Jordan," the intent of the present Israeli government is to seize upon either a U.S. military attack on Iraq, aimed at overthrowing Saddam Hussein, or a serious terrorist incident inside Israel to launch a "mass transfer" of more than two million Palestinians living in the West Bank and Gaza, across the river into Jordan.

"Should such circumstances arise," Van Creveld wrote in the April 28, 2002 issue of Conrad Black's Sunday Telegraph, "then Israel would mobilise with lightening speed--even now, much of its male population is on standby."

He spelled out a precise order of battle for the "mass transfer," although he wrote of his own personal opposition to the Sharon scheme:

"First, the country's three ultra-modern submarines would take up firing positions out at sea. Borders would be closed, a news blackout imposed, and all foreign journalists rounded up and confined to a hotel as guests of the Government." He continued, "A force of 12 divisions, 11 of them armoured, plus various territorial units suitable for occupation duties, would be deployed: five against Egypt, three against Syria, and one opposite Lebanon. This would leave three to face east as well as enough forces to put a tank inside every Arab-Israeli village just in case their populations get any funny ideas.

"The expulsion of the Palestinians would require only a few brigades. They would not drag people out of their houses but use heavy artillery to drive them out; the damage caused to Jenin would look like a pinprick in comparison."

Van Creveld estimated that none of the Arab states would respond militarily to the Israeli move, adding, "Should Saddam be mad enough to resort to weapons of mass destruction, then Israel's response would be so `awesome and terrible' (as Yitzhak Shamir, the former prime minister once said) as to defy the imagination." There is no question that this was a direct reference to an Israeli use of nuclear weapons against Iraq.

He added, "Israeli military experts estimate that such a war could be over in just eight days."

Van Creveld concluded that only the United States could stop such an Israeli doomsday scenario from playing out, and right now, chances are slim to nil that America will step in to stop Israel, which is seen by Bush as a major ally in the "war on terrorism." After Bush's June 25 speech, copies of Van Creveld's article were taken from the files and studied, intensively, by many Arab military and intelligence commanders, according to a well-informed Egyptian source.

Deadly Arsenal

The scale of the Israeli nuclear weapons program is vast, and has now been qualitatively transformed, by Israel's acquisition of three German-made diesel powered submarines, which, according to a recent study by the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, are armed with nuclear warheads on Cruise missiles. Carnegie published a report early in June 2002, detailing the Israeli nuclear weapons program. That booklength report on global nuclear weapons proliferation, Deadly Arsenals--Tracking Weapons of Mass Destruction, included an entire chapter on Israel's nuclear, chemical and biological weapons program. The authors wrote, "Probably the most important nuclear-related development in Israel is the formation of its sea-based nuclear arm. By July 2000 Israel completed taking delivery of all three of the Dolphin-class submarines it had ordered at the Thyssen-Nordseewerke shipyard in Kiel, Germany. In doing so, it is widely believed, Israel moved significantly toward acquiring a survivable second-strike nuclear capability. All indications are that Israel is on the way to finalizing a restructuring of its nuclear forces into a triad, like the United States. "Since the early 1980s (and probably even earlier) the Israeli navy (jointly with other governmental agencies) lobbied hard for the notion that Israel should build a small fleet of modern diesel submarines for `strategic purposes,' an Israeli euphemism for a sea-launched nuclear capability... It is also believed (but not confirmed) that the most sensitive aspect of the project, the cruise-missile technology that renders the diesel submarines nuclear-capable launching platforms, was developed and built in Israel... According to one report in the London Sunday Times, by early 2000 Israel had carried out the first launching tests of its cruise missiles."

The Carnegie study concluded, "A fleet of three submarines is believed to be the minimum that Israel needs to have a deployment at sea of one nuclear-armed submarine at all times."

The fact that Israel has achieved a deployable nuclear triad was advertised in a June 15 report in the Washington Post, under the headline, "Israel Has Submarine-Based Atomic Arms Capability."

(The preceding will appear on July 1, in Electronic Intelligence Weekly, the online of EIR. For more information, call, toll-free, 1-888-347-3258)

AND

Unrepentant War Criminal
By Jeffrey Steinberg
Executive Intelligence Review
5-16-2

Ariel Sharon, the Prime Minister of Israel, is currently facing possible war crime prosecutions for two massacres that occurred 20-years apart: the September 1982 massacre of Palestinian civilians in the Sabra and Shatila refugee camps in Lebanon (click for more), and the April 2002 Israeli Defense Forces (IDF) mass killings in the Jenin refugee camp in the West Bank.

Sharon is, without doubt, guilty of these crimes against humanity, and others. He is also unrepentant. For him, these mass killings are merely necessary steps on the path toward his objective of a "Final Solution" to the "Palestinian problem," through the mass expulsion and/or extermination of the more than 3 million Palestinians and Arabs now living in Israel, the West Bank, the Gaza Strip, and the Golan Heights. Under various labels, Sharon and a rogues gallery of collaborators inside Israel, Britain, and the United States, are now moving toward the final phase of their "mass transfer" plans for the Palestinians and Arabs.

EIR has "written the book" on Sharon's blood-soaked career for over 30 years. (see 1994 Profile) As a service to the current worldwide debate on his government's fascist actions, we provide this summary dossier on the Israeli mass murderer. This summary is linked to a compendium of earlier exposés of Sharon and his partners in crime.

The Sharon File

Sharon was born in Kfar Malal in 1928. At the age of 14, he joined the Haganah, and at 20, headed an infantry company in the Alexandroni Brigade during the 1948 War of Independence, during which the Israeli forces drove an estimated 300,000 Palestinians from their land, using some of the same genocidal methods against unarmed civilian populations that were used in the recent IDF invasion of the Palestinian Authority's Area A territory.

In 1953, Sharon founded "Unit 101," a secret death squad within the IDF that committed several mass murders of civilians. In October 1953, Sharon's "Unit 101" massacred 66 innocent civilians during a cross-border raid into the Jordanian West Bank village of Qibya. Under intense machine-gun fire, local residents were driven into their homes, which were then blown up around them, killing the occupants by burying them alive in piles of rubble. The April 2002 IDF massacre at the Palestinian refugee camp in Jenin was, in fact, modeled on Sharon's "Unit 101" operations at Qibya.

On Oct. 18, 1953, the U.S. State Department issued a bulletin denouncing the Qibya massacre, demanding that those responsible be "brought to account." Instead, Sharon was rewarded for his war crimes by having his "Unit 101" absorbed into the Israeli paratroop corps. By 1956, Sharon had been appointed paratroop brigade commander.

Between Feb. 28, 1955 and Oct. 10, 1956, a Sharon-led paratrooper brigade conducted similar cross-border invasions into Gaza, Egypt, and the West Bank in Jordan. At the West Bank village of Qalqilya, Sharon's death squad killed 83 people.

During the 1956 joint British, Israeli, and French invasion of the Suez Canal, Sharon and his lifelong collaborator in mass murder, Rafael Eytan (click for more), carried out another horrific war crime: In three separate incidents, Sharon- and Eytan-led units murdered Egyptian prisoners of war, as well as civilian Sudanese workers who had been captured. All told, 273 unarmed prisoners were executed and dumped into mass graves. When the story broke, nearly 40 years later, in the Aug. 16, 1995 London Daily Telegraph, it nearly ruptured Israeli-Egyptian relations. This was less than three months before Sharon would bloody his hands once again, by orchestrating the assassination of Israeli Prime Minister Yitzhak Rabin. Rabin, in Sharon's eyes, had committed the mistake of signing a peace treaty with Palestinian Authority President Yasser Arafat.

During the 1960s, Sharon's military career advanced. In 1964, he was appointed to head the IDF's Northern Command; in 1966, he took charge of the Army Training Department; in 1969, he was named commander of the IDF's Southern Command.

In 1972, at the urging of American organized crime figure and leading right-wing Zionist Meshulam Riklis, Sharon resigned from the IDF (he was recalled, briefly, to active duty during the 1973 Yom Kippur War) to run for the Knesset (parliament). Henceforth, Sharon would be wedded to leading international organized crime figures associated with the Meyer Lansky National Crime Syndicate in the United States, and allied Jewish mafia figures from Israel and Russia.

Even at the end of his career, Sharon was still running death squads. On Sept. 25, 1997, Israeli Television Channel One interviewed Benny Golan, a veteran of the Rimon Unit, which Sharon had created and deployed in the early 1970s in the Gaza Strip to carry out targetted assassinations of Palestinian "militants." Golan described the assassination program, and reported that members of the unit frequently "disguised themselves as Arabs" for "special operations" (click for more). Other sources reported, at the time, that the "special operations" included terrorist attacks on Israeli Jewish targets to justify "retaliatory strikes" against pre-selected Palestinian and Arab targets.

Far from ending his career of mass butchery, Sharon's resignation from the IDF coincided with the launching of an even more ambitious criminal enterprise that would see thousands of Palestinians killed and wounded as part of the "Eretz Israel," or "Greater Israel" drive to permanently annex all of the West Bank, the Gaza Strip, and the Golan Heights and resettle these areas with Russian and other Jewish immigrants, after the Palestinians have been eliminated.

'Landscam'

Sharon entered the Knesset in December 1973, at the very moment that the Israeli government lifted the ban on private sales of West Bank land to Israelis. The Knesset decision was brought about by a heavy lobbying effort by Sharon colleague and former Police Minister Yehezkel Sahar. The very first "private" purchase was for the construction of a residential community for retired IDF officers. The partners in the deal included Sahar, Gen. Reshavam Ze'evi, Sharon publicist Eli Landau, and Avraham Mintz, a founder of the fanatical settlers movement Gush Emunim.

In June 1974, Sharon personally led a group of settlers to establish an illegal outpost near the West Bank town of Nablus. It was the first of many such ventures that Sharon would sponsor, under the rhubric of the drive to "Judaize the territories."

Sharon's political career continued to advance. In 1975, Prime Minister Rabin appointed Sharon as his personal security adviser. Then, the Likud was swept into power in the 1977 elections, and Prime Minister Menachim Begin named Sharon as Minister of Agriculture. In that capacity, Sharon launched a massive expansion of Jewish "agricultural settlements" throughout the West Bank and Gaza. During 1977-81, more than 25,000 new settlers mostly members of the Gush Emunim moved into the occupied territories. The Gush Emunim settlers formed into death squads explicitly modelled on Sharon's old "Unit 101." They would play a pivotal role in a filthy Anglo-American Zionist criminal enterprise known as "Landscam."

In 1979, the Israeli Supreme Court ratified the private land purchases in the occupied territories, and immediately, Sharon's mafia cronies set up several real estate ventures, under such names as Jumbo, Samarea and Judea, and Meteor. In 1980, Sharon and Yuval Ne'eman formed an organization, Prevention of Emergence of Another Arab Country in Eretz Israel (PEACE), to press the issue of permanent Israeli annexation of the occupied territories. The group included a number of notables from Israel and the United States, who would remain part of the extended Sharon mafia family for years to come: Manhattan District Attorney Robert Morgenthau, Jewish Defense League (JDL) founder Joseph Churba, Young Israel director Harold Jacobs, Anti-Defamation League of B'nai Brith general counsel Arnold Forster, right-wing Knesset member and Rabbi Meir Kahane patron Geula Cohen, and Roni Milo.

Sharon toured the United States in 1980, lining up financing for a massive real estate grab. But first, Sharon launched a campaign of terror against the Palestinians in the West Bank, to literally scare them into leaving their land. In the Spring of 1982, Sharon hosted a planning meeting at his Negev desert ranch, which had been purchased for him by Riklis. Riklis, Henry Kissinger, Louis Mortimer Bloomfield, Rafi Eytan, General Ze'evi, Arieh Genger, Herbert Brin, and Eli Landau attended the session, according to an eyewitness account. Within days of the meeting, Gush Emunim and JDL terrorists began attacks on Palestinians in the West Bank.

"Landscam" was under way.

"Landscam" coincided with Sharon's invasion of Lebanon, which began on June 4, 1982, and was aimed at wiping out the Palestine Liberation Organization (click for more), which had established its base in several camps near Beirut. Between June 4 and Aug. 31, 1982, the IDF, under Sharon's direction (Begin had named him Minister of Defense the previous year), killed a total of 19,025 Palestinians and wounded 30,032 in a military campaign that Sharon called "Operation Peace in Galilee." Under immense pressure from the Reagan Administration, Sharon abandoned plans to assassinate Arafat, and, on Aug. 21, 1982, he allowed the PLO to evacuate 15,600 fighters from Lebanon, under an American-brokered cease-fire.

On Sept. 15, Sharon broke the cease-fire agreement, and the next day, launched a "purification" campaign against the refugee camps of Sabra, Shatila, and Burj El Barajneh. Falangist death squads protected by the IDF, which encircled the camps massacred unarmed women, children, and elderly.

On Sept. 19, 1982, the United Nations Security Council passed Resolution 521, harshly condemning the massacres at the camps. In a distant mirror of the current genocide in Jenin, Ramallah, and Bethlehem, Sharon ignored the international condemnations. Today, Sharon faces war crimes prosecution in court in Belgium (click for more) for his role in the Sabra and Shatila massacres, as the result of a lawsuit filed on June 18, 2001 by 23 survivors of the attacks.

On Oct. 15, 1982, a month after the 1982 massacres, Sharon held meetings in the Chouf Mountains of Lebanon and at his Negev ranch with Falange leader Camille Chamoun, Uri Dan, Rupert Murdoch, Charles Douglas-Home, and others, to move the "Landscam" West Bank real estate grab forward. On Nov. 15, 1982, a final meeting took place on several real estate purchases, mostly through Arab middle-men, to push the massive expansion of Jewish settlements throughout the West Bank at a handsome profit. Attending the meeting at Sharon's ranch were: Kissinger, Lord Harlech (Sir David Ormsby-Gore), Johannes von Thurn und Taxis, Tory Parliamentarian Julian Amery, Sir Edmund Peck, and MI-6 Mideast mandarin Nicholas Elliot.

The Kahane Commission, an Israeli body convened to investigate the Sabra and Shatila mass murders, found Sharon to be complicit in the crimes, and he was fired by Prime Minister Begin as Defense Minister shortly after the report's release. But Sharon landed on his feet. In 1984, after the fall of the Begin government and the establishment of a Likud-Labor national unity government, Sharon was appointed Minister of Trade and Industry, a position he held until 1990, when he was named Minister of Construction and Housing, a post that enabled him to continue as the leading sponsor of the massive expansion of Jewish settlements in the occupied territories. During Sharon's tenure in various government ministries, the number of Jewish settlers soared to more than 110,000.

In January 1986, Edgar Bronfman, the Jewish mafia don and president of the World Jewish Congress, admitted, in a New York Post interview, that he was negotiating on behalf of the Israeli government with Moscow, to secure Soviet permission for 400,000 Jews to emigrate to Israel in return for massive shipments of grain to the Soviet Union. The deal was cynically dubbed "Jews for wheat," in recognition that this scheme was leading to the annexation of the occupied lands by Israel. A year earlier, in another sop to the American- and British-based Jewish criminal interests bankrolling Sharon's "Judiazation" scheme, the Knesset had passed laws dropping all restrictions on cash flows into Israeli banks so long as the money was invested in Israel.

Hamas: Another Sharon Asset:

During his postings in the Likud governments during 1977-92, Sharon had not only been the "rabbi" of the Gush Emunim and Kach Movement/JDL Jewish underground terrorist organizations. He also played a pivotal role in the creation of Hamas (click for more), the Palestinian Islamist group, which was formally founded in 1988. Under the Israeli military occupation of the West Bank and Gaza, an estimated 800 "licenses" were handed out to Palestinians, to create schools, infirmaries, food kitchens, and other social service programs. Sharon made sure that all these licenses were given to Islamists, many of whom would be Hamas founders, as a way of creating a "countergang" ruling structure to eventually supplant the power of the PLO inside the occupied territories. Sharon's sponsorship of Hamas has become a public scandal in recent months, particularly since the publication of stories in EIR in the past year, exposing these links, and detailing Sharon's plans to use Hamas as part of his "Jordan is Palestine" drive for mass transfer.

Killing the 'Peace of the Brave'

When Rabin was elected Prime Minister of Israel in 1992, the former Sharon ally in the war on the Palestinians had the courage to admit that his underlying assumptions were wrong, and would lead to the destruction of Israel. He entered into secret peace talks with Arafat, which culminated in the August 1993 signing of the Oslo Peace Accords, in the presence of U.S. President William Clinton at the White House.

Instantly, Sharon declared war on the Oslo Accords and on Prime Minister Rabin (click for more). The entire "Landscam" gang joined Sharon in assailing the peace initiative. On Sept. 11, 1993, Kissinger told CBS News interviewers that Oslo was "unworkable." Several weeks later, Kissinger told the Institute for Jewish Affairs in London that Jordan would soon fall into the hands of Islamic fundamentalists and Olso would be crushed a not-so-veiled reference to Sharon's Hamas assets, which would soon launch a terror wave against Oslo in tandem with Sharon's Jewish underground.

On Oct. 11, 1993, Bertram and Herbert Zweibon, co-founders of Americans for a Safe Israel, a Sharonist front, held a conference in Crystal City, Virginia to launch a campaign to destroy Oslo and its sponsors. Five days later, Sharon delivered a speech calling for the settlers to launch a resistance to the sellout.

Sharon rushed to the United States and embarked on a nationwide tour on Nov. 14, 1993, in which he declared that the 150,000 Jewish settlers were the "only barrier to a Palestinian state." Sharon was accompanied, throughout the tour, by Yechial Leiter, a leader of the JDL in the West Bank settlement of Kiryat Arba. While in the United States, Sharon raised millions of dollars for the Kiryat Arba "resistance" from such right-wing Zionist patrons as Florida and California bingo parlor magnate Irving Moscowitz and former Reagan Administration Ambassador to Austria and perfume heir, Ronald Lauder.

Sharon's fundraising paid off. On Feb. 25, 1994, Baruch Goldstein, an IDF reservist and leader of Kiryat Arba, massacred 50 Palestinian worshipers at the Cave of the Patriarch holy site. Goldstein had been Rabbi Meir Kahane's Knesset campaign manager at Kiryat Arba.

In March 1994, some 200 rabbis, led by Avraham Shapira, staged a rally at Kiryat Arba and issued a religious edict, ordering resistance against any attempt by the Rabin government to dismantle any settlements. On March 31, 1994, Sharon and Yitzhak Shamir, the former Likud Prime Minister and Stern Gang terrorist, led a rally of 10,000 people attacking Oslo. ADL National Chairman Abe Foxman told the Jerusalem Post on April 2, 1994 that Rabin was "undermining organized Jewish clout" in America, through his peace antics.

Rabin was assassinated on Nov. 4, 1995 by a West Bank settler, Yigal Amir, who came from Sharon's terror hub, Kiryat Arba.

On Jan. 26, 1997, Sharon returned, triumphal, to Kiryat Arba, to deliver new marching orders to the heirs of "Unit 101." If Arafat declared a unilateral Palestinian state in the territory of the West Bank and Gaza under Palestinian Authority control, the settlers should join in the drive to annex all of Judea and Samaria. At the time, Sharon was Minister of National Infrastructure, a super-ministerial post that had been created for him by Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, Sharon's sometimes ally and sometimes rival for power in the Likud. During 1996-99, Sharon's tenure as Minister of National Infrastructure, the settlers population in the occupied territories soared to more than 200,000.

Netanyahu's fall from power in 1999, and his replacement by a Labor government headed by former IDF chief Ehud Barak, signalled that the Oslo peace process that Sharon was dedicated to destroying, was back on the table.

After the failure of the July 2000 Camp David II negotiations to reach a final settlement, more intense private negotiations between the Barak government and the Palestinian Authority began under a number of venues. Talks took place in New York City, and later, at the resort of Taba, Egypt, producing a final accord, in draft, that would have formed a just and viable basis for two sovereign states, Israel and Palestine. The thorny issues of the right of return of Palestinian refugees, the status of the holy sites in Jerusalem, and of creating two capitals within the extended city limits of Jerusalem, were, according to several Arab and Israeli diplomatic sources, worked out in principle by January 2001. These final points, memorialized in the talking points brought to the final sessions by President Clinton, could be revived today as a basis for reaching a just solution, in the view of many Mideast diplomats familiar with the document.

But Sharon and his backers would have nothing of this. In September 2000, Sharon visited New York City, where he met with Lauder and other supporters and financiers. He returned to Israel, reportedly with a large amount of cash to be disbursed to settlers' terrorist cells. Sharon personally staged the decisive provocation, by visiting the Islamic holy sites on al-Haram al-Sharif (click for more), what the Israelis call the Temple Mount, on Sept. 26, 2000 (click for more). Sharon was accompanied by more than 1,000 Israeli troops and paramilitary police. It was a flagrant provocation, an assertion of Israeli permanent control over the sacred sites of Islam, the Dome of the Rock and the Al-Aqsa Mosque.

With that visit, Sharon provoked the "Al Aqsa Intifada," and within days, the entire Holy Land was again awash in the blood of Palestinian protesters. By January 2001, the Barak government would fall, and, on Feb. 6, 2001, Sharon, who had taken over the Likud party in September 1999, was elected Prime Minister of Israel, ready to launch his final drive for "Greater Israel." (see ``The Insane Fascism of Ariel Sharon,'' by Lyndon LaRouche)
http://www.larouchepub.com/pr/site_packages/2002/sharon/020430sharon_crime_hist. html

posted 08-25-2003 07:17 PM            

Ariel Sharon = Super Zionist

I'm not convinced the Palestinians are carrying out all the attacks on Israeli
targets...I'll bet 80% of them are Israeli Mossad that are behind them.

Just like how the British MI-5 were behind some of the alleged "IRA" bombings.

There is a greater evil at work here.

But Shatoga hit the nail right on the head about the Neo-Cons being Strauss Worshipping Machevellian Trotskyites and Big Government Socialists.

They are ANYTHING but Conservatives.

posted 08-25-2003 07:27 PM            

Amendment I

posted 08-25-2003 10:40 PM            

[shatoga does not understand the first amendment...]

Maybe Congress doesn't understand the
first amendment.

Noahide Laws

In March 1991, President Bush signed the anti-Christian "Noahide Laws" into law. Now America has PL 102-14 directly from the Talmud, soon to become part of the new Case Law superseding Bible-based Common Law. . . a Justice composed of vengeance and vitriol rather then integrity and mercy.

While Jews are commanded to observe hundreds of laws, non-Jews are expected to follow seven that are presumed to date from the time of Noah. Judaism regards any non-Jew who keeps these laws as a righteous person who is guaranteed a place in the world to come.
--------------------------------------------------------

The Seven Noahide Laws

1. Not to deny God.

2. Not to blaspheme God.

3. Not to murder.

4. Not to engage in incestuous, adulterous, bestial or homosexual relationships.

5. Not to steal.

6. Not to eat a limb torn from a living animal.

7. To set up courts to ensure obedience to the other six laws.

The U.S. Congress officially recognized the Noahide Laws in legislation which was passed by both houses. Congress and the President of the United States, George Bush, indicated in Public Law 102-14, 102nd Congress, that the United States of America was founded upon the Seven Universal Laws of Noah, and that these Laws have been the bedrock of society from the dawn of civilization. They also acknowledged that the Seven Laws of Noah are the foundation upon which civilization stands and that recent weakening of these principles threaten the fabric of civilized society, and that justified preoccupation in educating the Citizens of the United States of America and future generations is needed. For this purpose, this Public Law designated March 26, 1991 as Education Day
http://www.usisrael.org/jsource/Judaism/The_Seven_Noahide_Laws.html

Do your own search - "Noahide Laws" -
Too much information to copy and
paste but well worth reading and understanding.
http://www.google-watch.org/cgi-bin/proxy.htm

posted 08-25-2003 11:47 PM            

now refering to what you posted and are implying, I get it...and damn near powerless to stop it...the machine has been in place long before we got here...

call it what you will...one world government,nwo,illuminati,old society,big money corps,secret groups...

we have one document between us and them...it cannot be allowed to errode...

posted 08-26-2003 01:45 AM            

.....I recently watched the film "The Quiet American," which takes place in Vietnam in the early 1950s when the French were involved in Vietnam.....

posted 08-26-2003 07:45 AM            

...agency officers orchestrating the Iran coup... directed a campaign of bombings by Iranians posing as members of the Communist Party, and planted articles and editorial cartoons in newspapers.<

At another forum;
One member has asked why Israeli TV shows pictures and bios of "terrorist bombers" while ambulances are still rushing to the scene.

"I didn't leave them; They left me!"-Barry Goldwater
http://www.sobran.com/columns/2003/030424.shtml
>The Unmaking of Conservatism <
>April 24, 2003
Conservatism — or at least something calling itself conservatism — is now fashionable, and those who claim the label are triumphant today. Their government has just won a war, and they can afford to gloat not only over liberals, but over an older breed of conservatives who are suspicious of big government even when (or especially when) it’s winning.
<
>But by winning power, the conservative movement began to lose its grip on conservative principles.<
>Now it quietly dropped its original goals.

As a powerful movement, conservatism also attracted new members who were more interested in power than in principle. Some of these were called “neoconservatives”<
>The conservatives wanted to keep the neocons within the movement. In this they succeeded only too well. Today the neocons have not only stayed; they have taken over the movement and pushed the principled conservatives out — or cowed them into silence, which comes to the same thing.

The older conservatives were wary of foreign entanglements and opposed on principle to foreign aid. But these are the very things the neocons favor most ardently; in fact, they are the very things that define neoconservatism and separate it from genuine conservatism. <
(excerpts only) read full article at: http://www.sobran.com/columns/2003/030424.shtml

http://www.lewrockwell.com/kwiatkowski/kwiatkowski18.html
(excerpts only)
>The neo-cons have been outed!
They are not conservatives, with faith in the American Constitution –<
>And their responses have been entirely predictable. Some of them... have denied that they are neocons,
and more vociferously denied even that neocons exist at all.
I promote empire,
I believe in a lower soldier class to do the domestic and global will of the philosopher-kings,
I regard constitutional limitation of government power as passé,
and I treat the Bill of Rights contemptuously
because I am, like you, a conservative.

Obviously, that argument is both strained and ludicrous,
not to mention false,
and it doesn’t work.
Young neocons, when you are older you may learn that when deep in a ditch, the first thing to do is stop digging.

Other neocons have reacted by pressing on with their political agendas, as if nothing has been exposed. Wolfowitz and Perle, Woolsey and Kristol and Krauthammer, the cadres of un-elected political appointees and their media acolytes, move forward with the Iraq agenda, the Iran agenda, the Syria agenda, the Jordan agenda, ad nauseum. Undeterred by obstacles like the law, the truth, Colin Powell, lack of WMD or any other rationale for the invasion and occupation of Iraq, catastrophe in Afghanistan, undeterred by the growing stream of American soldiers’ lives and futures sacrificed for their overseas agenda, undeterred by the rising chorus of American demands to know what is going on across the Potomac. Undeterred, life for these outed neocons goes on as before.
< http://www.lewrockwell.com/kwiatkowski/kwiatkowski18.html
>A third group of neocons respond in yet another way to outings.
When accused of lying about who they are and what they want,
when accused of lying to their closest friends and behaving badly,
when simply accused of being unrepentant and disgraceful liars –
this group responds belligerently and rudely, striking out.
These neocons don’t appreciate other people outing them,
they can out themselves without any help, thank you very much.
This group raises its collective fist as if to say
"Neocon and Proud!" If you don’t like it, not only are you "uninformed" and "unhelpful,"
you are probably part of the problem.

posted 08-26-2003 08:48 AM            

I think Ron Paul is probly one of a handful of traditional conservatives left.

Ron Pauls speech... "neo-Conned".....

http://www.infowars.com/print/ps/neo-conned.htm

posted 08-26-2003 09:01 AM            

http://www.alankeyes.com/

get a copy of his 2000 campaign platform...

guess you were in burma then...

posted 08-26-2003 09:14 PM            

[now refering to what you posted and are implying, I get it...and damn near powerless to stop it...the machine has been in place long before we got here...]

Seeker
This sounds so familiar - because I've heard it several times from my husband.
But I don't believe we were meant to sit
it the dark. Lets turn the lights on and take
a spotlight to the dark corners. It may help.

It probably wasn't the appropriate thread
to post the Noahide Laws - should have tied it in with the Alabama issue.
Oh well . . . . .

posted 08-26-2003 10:07 PM            

yes yes...but for me staying involved around my stomping grounds is the ticket...

I'm glad you posted it, never heard of it and it is always nice to pick up some extra knowledge

posted 08-27-2003 07:20 AM            

Here is a brief summary of the general understanding of what neocons believe:
1. They agree with Trotsky on permanent revolution,
4. They accept the notion that the ends justify the means—that hard-ball politics is a moral necessity.
7. They believe lying is necessary for the state to survive.
8. They believe a powerful federal government is a benefit.
9. They believe pertinent facts about how a society should be run should be held by the elite...
15. They dislike and despise libertarians (therefore, the same applies to all strict constitutionalists.)
16. They endorse attacks on civil liberties, such as those found in the Patriot Act, as being necessary.
17. They unconditionally support Israel and have a close alliance with the Likud Party.<

Excerpts:

Congressman Ron Paul addresses the U.S. House of Representatives
July 10, 2003

"Neo-conned"

The modern-day, limited-government movement has been co-opted. The conservatives have failed in their effort to shrink the size of government. There has not been, nor will there soon be, a conservative revolution in Washington. Political party control of the federal government has changed, but the inexorable growth in the size and scope of government has continued unabated. The liberal arguments for limited government in personal affairs and foreign military adventurism were never seriously considered as part of this revolution.

Since the change of the political party in charge has not made a difference, who’s really in charge? If the particular party in power makes little difference, whose policy is it that permits expanded government programs, increased spending, huge deficits, nation building and the pervasive invasion of our privacy, with fewer Fourth Amendment protections than ever before?

(Paragraphs ommitted/ visit Mech's link above to read entire)

One thing is certain: conservatives who worked and voted for less government in the Reagan years and welcomed the takeover of the U.S. Congress and the presidency in the 1990s and early 2000s were deceived. Soon they will realize that the goal of limited government has been dashed and that their views no longer matter.

The so-called conservative revolution of the past two decades has given us massive growth in government size, spending and regulations. Deficits are exploding and the national debt is now rising at greater than a half-trillion dollars per year. Taxes do not go down—even if we vote to lower them. They can’t, as long as spending is increased

(Paragraphs ommitted/ visit Mech's link above to read entire)

...the true believers in limited government are now shunned and laughed at. At the very least, they are ignored—except when they are used by the new leaders of the right, the new conservatives now in charge of the U.S. government.

(Paragraphs ommitted/ visit Mech's link above to read entire)

Since 9-11, protection of privacy, whether medical, personal or financial, has vanished. Free speech and the Fourth Amendment have been under constant attack...
None of this happened by accident or coincidence. Precise philosophic ideas prompted certain individuals to gain influence to implement these plans. The neoconservatives—a name they gave themselves—diligently worked their way into positions of power and influence. They documented their goals, strategy and moral justification for all they hoped to accomplish. Above all else, they were not and are not conservatives dedicated to limited, constitutional government...

In many ways, there’s nothing “neo” about their views, and certainly nothing conservative. Yet they have been able to co-op the conservative movement by advertising themselves as a new or modern form of conservatism.

The 'meat' of the speech in one paragraph?
Here's the Beef!
>I realize that all conservatives are not neoconservatives, and all neocons don’t necessarily agree on all points—which means that in spite of their tremendous influence, most members of Congress and those in the administration do not necessarily take their marching orders from AEI or Richard Perle. But to use this as a reason to ignore what neoconservative leaders believe, write about and agitate for—with amazing success I might point out—would be at our own peril.

This country still allows open discourse—though less everyday—
and we who disagree should push the discussion and expose those who drive our policies.
It is getting more difficult to get fair and balanced discussion on the issues,
because it has become routine for the hegemons to label those who object to preemptive war and domestic surveillance as traitors, unpatriotic and un-American.<
Familiar words anyone?

>The uniformity of support for our current foreign policy by major and cable-news networks should concern every American. We should all be thankful for C-SPAN and the Internet.<

posted 09-04-2003 01:53 PM            

Since I have never written an article for LRC before, I figured I should start things off open and honest. Like an alcoholic at an A.A. meeting, I am going to stand before the group, admit my problem, and explain the attempts I am making at recovery. Again, like at an A.A. meeting, hopefully others will be able to benefit from my struggles. Without further delay...

I am a recovering neo-conservative. I’ve been clear thinking and freedom loving for 6 months now. Four years ago, when I was 16, my intellectual journey began to determine where I stood on the political spectrum. During the course of the past 4 years, I have sunk further and further into the depths of neo-conservatism and statism, only to be rescued while I still had a touch of independent thinking inside of me.

At 16, I became interested in politics due to a high school political science class I was in that stirred my interest. At home I began to discuss politics with my Dad who was a die-hard Republican. My views were shaped mainly by him. My Dad’s views had an inherent contradiction in them that led me down the wrong path. As I said, he was a die-hard Republican and supporter of neo-conservatives, but yet he also was an ardent states’ rights advocate, limited government advocate, etc. My Dad wasn’t that studied in politics so it seems he didn’t understand that there is a contradiction between limited government/states’ rights and the principles of neo-conservatism. I, therefore, didn’t know that there was a contradiction either. To the contrary, I thought that they were logically consistent.

I became a die-hard Republican like my Dad, even more so. In the months leading up to the 2000 election, even though I couldn’t vote – which devastated me – I was a Republican pawn spending all my time and efforts trying to convince others to vote "for my man dubya." I stayed up all night Election night, even though I had to work early the next morning, to see "my man dubya" win the election. Of course the next morning at work, while the election was still up in the air, I was nothing more than a mouthpiece for the Republican party. Looking back at these times, it is all very sad.

CONTINUED HERE: http://www.lewrockwell.com/orig4/truitt1.html

>I had flags on my car, in my room, on my clothing, and I even contemplated getting a tattoo of the American flag to show my loyalty. Loyalty to the State meant so much to me. I would tear up whenever I heard the Star-Spangled-Banner or would recite the Pledge. I honestly felt that those who disagree with America’s policies were nothing but anti-Americans and should get out. "Love it or leave it!"<

This is why NeoCons are against teaching methods that encourage critical thinking.
It only takes a seed of doubt to turn someone's mind around.

[Edited 1 times, lastly by shatoga on 09-04-2003]</