donderdag 26 maart 2015

Zionist Fascism 327

The Roots of Netanyahu’s Electoral Victory: Colonial Expansion and Fascist Ideology

In-depth Report: 
 114 
  16  0 
 
  156
Netanyahu-congress
It is always a meritorious deed to get hold of a Palestinian’s possessions” The code of Jewish Law revised and updated by Benjamin Netanyahu
            Benjamin Netanyahu’s re-election makes him the longest serving prime minister in Israel’s history.  His 20% margin of victory (30 Knesset seats to 24 for his nearest opponent) underlines the mass base of his consolidation of power.
            Most critical commentators cite Netanyahu’s racist pronouncements; his rejection of any two state solution and his overt appeal for a mass Jewish voter turnout to counteract the ‘droves of Arab voters’ for his electoral victories.
            There is no question that the majority of Israeli Jewish leaders and parties support Netanyahu’s racist pronouncements and ‘no-state’ solution and joined him in a coalition government.  But the larger issue is the positive mass response to Netanyahu’s call to action.  Nearly three quarters of the electorateturned out (73%) to elect him.  Moreover, Netanyahu has been elected prime minister for four terms:  between 1996-99 and more recently 2009-20.
            What is more, the opposition has not differed from the Netanyahu coalition regime’s Judeo-centric policies and pronouncements.  In other words, ‘racist’ ideology per se is not what drives the Israeli majority to repeatedly support Netanyahu.
Jewish-centered racism is an integral and accepted part of Israel’s political culture.
Social Colonialism and Netanyahu’s Popularity
There is a more fundamental, ongoing material basis which accounts for Netanyahu’s electoral victories and mass appeal: His regime’s aggressive, perpetual and escalating seizure and dispossession of Palestinians land and his massive financing of Israel’s Jewish colonial towns.
In other words, Netanyahu’s appeal is rooted in the large-scale, long-term housing which hundreds of thousands of low and middle income Israeli Jews have obtained via his brutal land-grabbing policy.  The so-called ‘settlers’ are in part armed Israeli Jewish colonists who engage in open theft and defend Netanyahu, because they materially benefit from his policies…  It is not only those who have already colonized Palestinian land grabbed after 1967 – over 650,000 Jews – who vote for Netanyahu, but there are the hundreds of thousands of others in Israel, priced out of the Israeli real estate bubble, who cannot afford comfortable housing and look to the West Bank and Jerusalem for a ‘Jewish solution’ at the expense of the Palestinian inhabitants.
Racism, the foul language directed at Palestinians, which pervades Israeli-Jewish culture (‘Arab scum’ is one of many such common expressions) found expression even among the songs celebrating Netanyahu’s latest electoral victory.  Racism serves to justify the land grabbing.  Can the settler mind even imagine that an ‘inferior people’ should complain about land grabs by the ‘chosen people’?  Modern educated Jewish professionals wax indignant that shepherds and olive farmers should hold back the development of glitzy shopping malls, million dollar community centers (for Jews only, of course), hospitals, sports complexes and high tech industrial parks.
And if they – ‘the Arabs’ – object to their own displacement, all the better:  Their resistance provides an excellent pretext for armed Jewish settler thugs to invade a village, drive out the inhabitant and call in Netanyahu’s bull dozers, as a prelude to establishing an ‘outpost’, first steps to a new Jews only colony!
The key to Netanyahu’s big vote is that he responds favorably and forcefully in favor of new colonies.  The self-styled Israeli Defense (sic) Force (IDF) is dispatched to protect the local vandals and to shoot live ammo at any rock-throwing Palestinian adolescent defending the family patrimony.
Netanyahu acts and speaks for the rapacious Jewish colonial masses.  The opposition criticized Netanyahu on the basis of his neglect of socio-economic issues in Israel, especially, the soaring prices of housing in the major cities.  But they failed to attract many Jewish voters because Netanyahu offers a more attractive alternative solution – the seizure of more Palestinian land and the construction of Jewish homes, instead of fighting powerful Jewish real estate moguls, land speculators and corporate landlords inside Israel.
Extremism at the Service of Jewish Housing is No Vice
For the mass of Israeli Jews, looking for a cheap, easy and government-financed road to comfortable middle class housing, seizing and occupying Palestinian property is a very attractive and viable ‘solution’.
Netanyahu’s ‘final solution’ for the Palestinians – no state – is a guarantee that land, which is seized and housing which is built, will remain under Jewish jurisdiction.  The ‘final solution’ for Palestinians is the housing solution for the Jewish masses.
Under Netanyahu, from 2013 to 2015, two-thirds of new housing construction (for Jews only) has taken place on stolen Palestinian lands.  His regime spends $252 million dollars a year on Jews-only colonies (‘settlements’).  The Netanyahu regime spends $950 for each Jewish colonist in the West Bank, double what is invested for each Jewish Israeli resident in Tel Aviv.  For the most aggressive Jewish colonists, those who destroy the productive olive groves, torch Palestinian homes and who establish ‘settler outposts’, Netanyahu spends $1,483 a year . . . with promises of roads, electricity, schools, swimming pools and air conditioning to come!
Owning the Holy City Secures the Unsavory Vote
Netanyahu’s big vote in Jerusalem can be accounted for by the fact that over 300,000 Jews have been the beneficiaries of land grabs and sparkling high-rise condos in what had been centuries-old Palestinian neighborhoods.
Netanyahu assures the Jerusalem Jews that ‘their city’ is and always will be the capital of Israel, an undivided Jewish city.
Sticking his finger in the eyes of the EU and US officials, who claim otherwise, energizes and emboldens the Jewish voters
Netanyahu’s ethnic cleansing is unrelenting:  That is why he is re-elected over and over again.  Israeli colonial settlements grew by over 5% each year from 2009 – 2015.  There is no backtracking with Bibi Netanyahu:  at this rate of ‘erasure’ all of historical Palestine will be Judified by 2050 at the latest!
Herr Netanyahu claims that Israeli Jews must have their  ‘lebensraum’ . . .
Israel and other colonial powers, like England in the 19th century and Germany in the 20th century, ‘solve’ their domestic social problems and social unrest by exporting populations across borders.  The attractiveness of this solution is that it preserves the power and privileges of the domestic economic elite and provides an ‘escape valve’ for the local disaffected masses.
Emigration to settler colonies requires violent dispossession of the local inhabitants.  If stiff resistance emerges – the imperial powers resort to genocide; extermination of native peoples by the English, Slavic peoples by the Germans, Palestinian Arabs and other non-Jews by the Israeli Jews.
Long past is the notion that Israeli Jews would solve their social -economic problems via a collectivist economy and popular struggle against Jewish plutocrats.
Today Jewish-Israeli millionaires flourish alongside orthodox, secular, Sephardic, Ashkenazi, Sabra and Russian emigrant colonists.  The former exploitslabor and markets, while the latter dispossesses Palestinians.  Netanyahu has discovered a formula for uniting quarrelsome Jewish parties, leaders and voters and for winning elections.
Moreover, Netanyahu has secured the financial and political backing of numerous overseas Jewish-Zionist billionaires.  He has secured the unconditional support of tens of thousands of middle class Israel-First activists, academics and professionals who operate AIPAC and dozens of similar propaganda mills in Washington and Christian Zionists throughout the US.  Netanyahu’s overseas backers ensure that the US government may grumble and criticize, but will never disrupt Netanyahu’s ‘plan’ of an ethnically pure ‘Greater Israel’ with Jerusalem as its ‘eternal’ capital.  Obama may whine and talk to the press about ‘reconsidering US-Israeli relations’ but he has assured Israel and Netanyahu that military and economic ties will remain intact.
 Conclusion
            Netanyahu has succeeded in setting a colonial agenda for all Israeli-Jewish parties (bar one).
            He has established the fact that competitive elections and opposition political parties are compatible and even facilitate violent colonial expansion.
            He has established the fact that Israel and its people embrace a racist ideology and receive the endorsement of most Western leaders, and mass media and the unconditional support of its overseas fifth column.
            Israel’s project for Palestine, the creation of a single Jewish state, is far more than the demented vision of one man.  It has been taken to heart by the great mass of the Israeli-Jewish people and their overseas supporters.  The victory of Netanyahu and his supporters marks a historic victory for all those regimes and people across the world who believe and fight for an imperial dominated world.

U.S. Agression 2



FOR years, experts worried that the Middle East would face an uncontrollable nuclear-arms race if Iran ever acquired weapons capability. Given the region’s political, religious and ethnic conflicts, the logic is straightforward.
As in other nuclear proliferation cases like India, Pakistan and North Korea, America and the West were guilty of inattention when they should have been vigilant. But failing to act in the past is no excuse for making the same mistakes now. All presidents enter office facing the cumulative effects of their predecessors’ decisions. But each is responsible for what happens on his watch. President Obama’s approach on Iran has brought a bad situation to the brink of catastrophe.
In theory, comprehensive international sanctions, rigorously enforced and universally adhered to, might have broken the back of Iran’s nuclear program. But the sanctions imposed have not met those criteria. Naturally, Tehran wants to be free of them, but the president’s own director of National Intelligence testified in 2014 that they had not stopped Iran’s progressing its nuclear program. There is now widespread acknowledgment that the rosy 2007 National Intelligence Estimate, which judged that Iran’s weapons program was halted in 2003, was an embarrassment, little more than wishful thinking.
Even absent palpable proof, like a nuclear test, Iran’s steady progress toward nuclear weapons has long been evident. Now the arms race has begun: Neighboring countries are moving forward, driven by fears that Mr. Obama’s diplomacy is fostering a nuclear Iran. Saudi Arabia, keystone of the oil-producing monarchies, has long been expected to move first. No way would the Sunni Saudis allow the Shiite Persians to outpace them in the quest for dominance within Islam and Middle Eastern geopolitical hegemony. Because of reports of early Saudi funding, analysts have long believed that Saudi Arabia has an option to obtain nuclear weapons from Pakistan, allowing it to become a nuclear-weapons state overnight. Egypt and Turkey, both with imperial legacies and modern aspirations, and similarly distrustful of Tehran, would be right behind.
Ironically perhaps, Israel’s nuclear weapons have not triggered an arms race. Other states in the region understood — even if they couldn’t admit it publicly — that Israel’s nukes were intended as a deterrent, not as an offensive measure.
Iran is a different story. Extensive progress in uranium enrichment and plutonium reprocessing reveal its ambitions. Saudi, Egyptian and Turkish interests are complex and conflicting, but faced with Iran’s threat, all have concluded that nuclear weapons are essential.
The former Saudi intelligence chief, Prince Turki al-Faisal, said recently, “whatever comes out of these talks, we will want the same.” He added, “if Iran has the ability to enrich uranium to whatever level, it’s not just Saudi Arabia that’s going to ask for that.” Obviously, the Saudis, Turkey and Egypt will not be issuing news releases trumpeting their intentions. But the evidence is accumulating that they have quickened their pace toward developing weapons.
Saudi Arabia has signed nuclear cooperation agreements with South Korea, China, France and Argentina, aiming to build a total of 16 reactors by 2030. The Saudis also just hosted meetings with the leaders of Pakistan, Egypt and Turkey; nuclear matters were almost certainly on the agenda. Pakistan could quickly supply nuclear weapons or technology to Egypt, Turkey and others. Or, for the right price, North Korea might sell behind the backs of its Iranian friends.


The Obama administration’s increasingly frantic efforts to reach agreement with Iran have spurred demands for ever-greater concessions from Washington. Successive administrations, Democratic and Republican, worked hard, with varying success, to forestall or terminate efforts to acquire nuclear weapons by states as diverse as South Korea, Taiwan, Argentina, Brazil and South Africa. Even where civilian nuclear reactors were tolerated, access to the rest of the nuclear fuel cycle was typically avoided. Everyone involved understood why.
This gold standard is now everywhere in jeopardy because the president’s policy is empowering Iran. Whether diplomacy and sanctions would ever have worked against the hard-liners running Iran is unlikely. But abandoning the red line on weapons-grade fuel drawn originally by the Europeans in 2003, and by the United Nations Security Council in several resolutions, has alarmed the Middle East and effectively handed a permit to Iran’s nuclear weapons establishment.
The inescapable conclusion is that Iran will not negotiate away its nuclear program. Nor will sanctions block its building a broad and deep weapons infrastructure. The inconvenient truth is that only military action like Israel’s 1981 attack on Saddam Hussein’s Osirak reactor in Iraq or its 2007 destruction of a Syrian reactor, designed and built by North Korea, can accomplish what is required. Time is terribly short, but a strike can still succeed.
Rendering inoperable the Natanz and Fordow uranium-enrichment installations and the Arak heavy-water production facility and reactor would be priorities. So, too, would be the little-noticed but critical uranium-conversion facility at Isfahan. An attack need not destroy all of Iran’s nuclear infrastructure, but by breaking key links in the nuclear-fuel cycle, it could set back its program by three to five years. The United States could do a thorough job of destruction, but Israel alone can do what’s necessary. Such action should be combined with vigorous American support for Iran’s opposition, aimed at regime change in Tehran.
Mr. Obama’s fascination with an Iranian nuclear deal always had an air of unreality. But by ignoring the strategic implications of such diplomacy, these talks have triggered a potential wave of nuclear programs. The president’s biggest legacy could be a thoroughly nuclear-weaponized Middle East.

Henk Hofland en de Massa 31


Met een niet geringe pedanterie stelde de huisfilosoof van de Nederlandse zelfbenoemde 'politiek-literaire elite' in het weekblad De Groene Amsterdammer van 18 maart 2015:

Op 21 november 1981 namen op het Museumplein in Amsterdam vierhonderdduizend mensen deel aan een demonstratie… Twee jaar later demonstreerden 550.000 mensen in Den Haag.

Dergelijke massale betogingen worden al jaren nergens meer gehouden. Dat is geen wonder. Na het einde van de Koude Oorlog is de buitenlandse politiek gefragmentariseerd. Ook de publieke opinie had geen groot politiek doel meer. Als er nu honderdduizend mensen op het Museumplein zijn, is het voor een popconcert. Die relatieve rust in de wereld heeft tot 11 september 2001 geduurd. Daarna hebben de gevaren een ander karakter gekregen, maar ze zijn niet minder aanwezig. Misschien is Poetins Rusland begonnen met een nieuwe fase van expansie. Er dreigt een nieuwe escalatie tussen Iran en Israël en de Amerikaanse Republikeinen. De wereld is weer aanmerkelijk gevaarlijker geworden en de publieke opinie kan er niets aan doen.

Het draaipunt waar omheen zijn betoog cirkelt zijn een tweetal standpunten:

Na het einde van de Koude Oorlog is de buitenlandse politiek gefragmentariseerd. Ook de publieke opinie had geen groot politiek doel meer.

Dit is een voorbeeld van een typische Hofland-redenering. Ineens verschijnt vanuit het niets een stelling waarvoor geen verklaring wordt gegeven en waardoor de hele redenering, die daarop is gebaseerd, kritiekloos moet worden aanvaard. Laat ik dit proberen toe te lichten. 'Na het einde van de Koude Oorlog is de buitenlandse politiek gefragmentariseerd.' Deze bewering roept bij wat Hofland 'het denkend deel' van de mensheid noemt, onmiddellijk een aantal klemmende vragen op:

  1. wat bedoelt de opiniemaker precies met het begrip 'gefragmentariseerd'? Bedoelt hij dat -- net als een fragmentatiebom in kleine, uiterst verwoestende deeltjes uiteenvalt --  dit proces zich ook in de westerse 'buitenlandse politiek' voltrekt? Zo ja, hoe is dat te verklaren? Zo nee, wat bedoelt hij dan precies?                                      
  2. hoe kwam het dat 'de publieke opinie geen groot politiek doel meer [had]'? Bestond er van de ene op de andere dag 'geen groot politiek doel meer'? Zo ja, waarom niet? En indien het antwoord negatief is, is de vraag: was elk 'groot politiek doel' inmiddels succesvol bereikt? 
De antwoorden zijn van doorslaggevend belang om te kunnen testen of de rest van Hoflands betoog logisch is. Welnu, uitgaande van de officiële betekenis van het woord fragmentariseren is Hofland dus van oordeel dat de westerse 'buitenlandse politiek' na de Koude Oorlog 'niet samenhangend' meer is, maar in 'brokstukken' uiteen is gevallen. Klopt dit? Nee, niet als men oog heeft voor het feit dat sinds het uiteenvallen van de Sovjet Unie, het Westen, in NAVO-verband, onder aanvoering van Washington en Wall Street gemeenschappelijk grootscheeps geweld heeft ontketend tegen voormalig-Joegoslavië, Afghanistan, Irak, Libië, Mali, en betrokken is geraakt bij de burgeroorlogen in Syrië en Oekraïne. In dit cruciale opzicht is de westerse 'buitenlandse politiek' gemeenschappelijker geweest dan tijdens het grootste deel van de 44 jaar durende Koude Oorlog. Kortom, vanuit het standpunt van oorlog en vrede is de westerse 'buitenlandse politiek' absoluut niet 'gefragmentariseerd.' Integendeel zelfs. Bovendien is sinds de ontbinding van het Warschau Pact de NAVO niet alleen qua ledenaantal bijna verdubbeld en kan het vandaag de dag overal ter wereld worden ingezet. Daardoor is het geen defensief maar offensief bondgenootschap geworden. Daarnaast besteden de NAVO-landen tezamen tegenwoordig ook nog eens veel meer belastinggeld aan wat verhullend 'defensie' wordt genoemd. 

Wat bedoelt Hofland dan precies? Hoewel het blijft gokken met ideologisch bevlogen opiniemakers, denk ik toch dat hij, in een poging angst onder 'het volk' aan te wakkeren, bedoelt dat er enige tijd geen groot gemeenschappelijk Kwaad in de wereld meer was, die de gelederen in het Westen met een adembenemende kadaverdiscipline kon doen sluiten.  Volgens de Koude Oorlogsprofeet heeft 'Die relatieve rust in de wereld tot 11 september 2001 geduurd.' Het verschijnsel 'rust' dient daarbij te worden opgevat als de 'rust' van de gevestigde neoliberale orde in een 'unipolaire wereld,' waarin de Amerikaanse hegemonie onaantastbaar bleef en neoconservatief Washington in overleg met  Wall Street overal een 'nieuwe wereldorde' kon afdwingen. Het probleem is alleen dat de VS na 9/11 zelfs niet met  behulp van ontelbare miljarden voor het militair-industrieel complex en na massale bloedbaden erin slaagde de landen die weigerden zich klakkeloos neer te leggen bij de hegemonie van de VS, met grof geweld in het gareel te meppen. Integendeel zelfs, het heeft de chaos in het Midden-Oosten en de Maghreb alleen maar vergroot. Daardoor is er onder fatsoenlijke westerse burgers een volgens Hofland betreurenswaardig ‘populistisch alarmisme’ ontstaan, waardoor 'Zowel in West-Europa als in Amerika bij een zeer groot deel van het publiek de vaderlandslievende eerzucht en de strijdlust verloren [zijn] gegaan.' Ondanks alle fraai klinkende woorden van mainstream-opiniemakers als H.J.A Hofland beseften ontwikkelde burgers, die niet tot zijn 'denkend deel' van de samenleving behoorden, in al hun vermeende onnadenkendheid dat het 'Westen' geenszins 'vredestichtend' is, en dat  'vaderlandslievende eerzucht' en 'strijdlust' archaïsche eufemismen zijn voor doodordinaire oorlogsmisdaden, genocide en misdaden tegen de menselijkheid. En sinds de meest vooraanstaande nazi-leiders in Neurenberg hiervoor de doodstraf hebben gekregen, is er behalve de 'beste journalist van de twintigste eeuw' geen mens die deze begrippen nog gebruikt om propaganda te maken voor bloedbaden. 

Kort samengevat: datgene wat onder punt a. valt, is slechts het kenmerkende  gezwets van de Atlanticus Henk Hofland, en dient derhalve door een ontwikkelde lezer niet serieus te worden genomen. Zeker niet nu hij al maandenlang als 'vaderlandslievende' en opiniemaker, druk doende is met het demoniseren van 'Poetin' om op die manier de geesten rijp te maken voor een, desnoods, gewelddadige regime-change in de Russische federatie. Immers, 'President Poetin wil geen compromis, zoals de praktijk van deze oorlog aantoont, en is het dus noodzaak voor het Westen om grenzen aan de Russische expansie te stellen. We naderen het stadium waarin van Poetin alles te verwachten valt. Eerst werd de Krim geannexeerd, nu is er deze burgeroorlog in Oekraïne' en 'het niet meer dan redelijk [is] je af te vragen wat daarna op de agenda van Moskou staat,' aldus de kleine veldheer vanuit zijn leunstoel in Amsterdam. En eerlijk is eerlijk, de mainstream-paniekzaaierij en demonisering is tot nu toe uiterst succesvol geweest, zowel bij het 'denkend' als onnadenkend 'deel' van de Nederlandse bevolking. Dit is overigens niet vreemd. De gevestigde orde heeft een boeman nodig om de aandacht af te leiden van de eigen interne tegenstellingen. In dit opzicht sluit Hoflands hetze naadloos aan bij het neoconservatieve gedachtengoed in Washington. Zoals ondermeer de illegale inval in Irak aantoonde, gaan de neoconservatieve beleidsbepalers niet van de waarheid uit, maar van wat zij beschouwen als 'nobele leugens,' een begrip dat werd gepopulariseerd door de politiek ideoloog Leo Strauss, geestelijk vader van de Amerikaanse neoconservatieven en leerling van de Duitse twintigste eeuwse filosoof en politiek theoreticus Carl Schmitt. Enige achtergrond informatie: 

Schmitt is a major figure in 20th century legal and political theory, writing extensively on the effective wielding of political power. His work has been a major influence on subsequent political theory, legal theory, continental philosophy, and political theology in the 20th century and beyond…

Schmitt joined the Nazi Party on 1 May 1933. Within days of joining the party, Schmitt was party to the burning of books by Jewish authors, rejoicing in the burning of 'un-German' and 'anti-German' material, and calling for a much more extensive purge, to include works by authors influenced by Jewish ideas. In July he was appointed State Councillor for Prussia (Preußischer Staatsrat) by Hermann Göring and became the president of the Vereinigung nationalsozialistischer Juristen ('Union of National-Socialist Jurists') in November. He also replaced Hermann Heller as professor at the University of Berlin (a position he held until the end of World War II). He presented his theories as an ideological foundation of the Nazi dictatorship, and a justification of the 'Führer' state… 

Half a year later, in June 1934, Schmitt became editor in chief for the self-published newspaper 'Deutsche Juristen-Zeitung' […] in July 1934, he justified the political murders of the Night of the Long Knives as the 'highest form of administrative justice' ('höchste Form administrativer Justiz') and the authority of Hitler with 'The leader defends the law' ('Der Führer schützt das Recht'). Schmitt presented himself as a radical anti-semite and also was the chairman of a law teachers' convention in Berlin in October 1936, where he demanded that German law be cleansed of the 'Jewish spirit' ('jüdischem Geist'), going so far as to demand that all publications by Jewish scientists should henceforth be marked with a small symbol…

In 1945, Schmitt was captured by American forces and, after spending more than a year in an internment camp, he returned to his home town of Plettenberg following his release in 1946… Schmitt refused every attempt at de-nazification, which effectively barred him from positions in academia. Despite being isolated from the mainstream of the scholarly and political community, he continued his studies especially of international law from the 1950s on, and he received a never-ending stream of visitors, both colleagues and younger intellectuals, until well into his old age…

Schmitt supported the emergence of totalitarian power structures in his paper 'Die geistesgeschichtliche Lage des heutigen Parlamentarismus' (roughly: 'The Intellectual-Historical Situation of Today's Parliamentarianism,' translated as The Crisis of Parliamentary Democracy by Ellen Kennedy). Schmitt criticized the institutional practices of liberal politics, arguing that they are justified by a faith in rational discussion and openness that is at odds with actual parliamentary party politics, in which outcomes are hammered out in smoke-filled rooms by party leaders. Schmitt also posits an essential division between the liberal doctrine of separation of powers and what he holds to be the nature of democracy itself, the identity of the rulers and the ruled. Although many critics of Schmitt today, such as Stephen Holmes in his The Anatomy of Anti-Liberalism, take exception to his fundamentally authoritarian outlook, the idea of incompatibility between liberalism and democracy is one reason for the continued interest in his political philosophy.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carl_Schmitt

Voor een goed begrip is belangrijk te weten dat de geopolitieke opvattingen van de Amerikaanse neoconservatieven in de regering Bush junior als in de regering Obama sterk beïnvloed zijn door de opvattingen van Carl Schmitt's leerling Leo Strauss: 

Prior to the US invasion of Iraq in 2003 the White House failed to heed warnings from military and intelligence analysts about possible repercussions from the violent overthrow of Saddam Hussein. Now it seems the U.S. is again failing to heed warnings about the potential risks of an attack on Iran. I asked Professor Boyle his view on why the present administration ignores such warnings:

Professor Francis A. Boyle: 'Well you have to understand the neoconservative mentality. I went to the University of Chicago with these people, (Paul) Wolfowitz and all the rest of them, and I went through the same program, the Department of Political Science run by the neocon founder Leo Strauss. His mentor in Germany before he came to the United States was Carl Schmitt who went on to become the most notorious Nazi law professor of that benighted era who tried to justify in legal terms every hideous atrocity the Nazis inflicted on anyone.

So the neocons had been thoroughly brainwashed I would say, as they attempted to do to me at the University of Chicago, in Schmitt, and Strauss, and Nietzsche and Machiavelli. These are the people we are dealing with. They are extremely dangerous, very bright, cunning and ruthless, and they are really out to dominate and control the two-thirds of the world’s hydrocarbon resources in Eurasia. –An objective that Zbigniew Brzezinski identified a while ago in his book, The Grand Chess Board.'

Geheel in lijn met de Amerikaanse hegemonistische ideologie van onder andere Obama's adviseur Brzezinski  pleitte de huidige Amerikaanse president 'NAVO-steun' aan 'Oost-Europa.' Al op dinsdag 25 maart 2014, slechts negen dagen na de verkiezingen waarbij de bevolking op de Krim vóór aansluiting bij de Russische federatie koos, berichtte Het Algemeen Dagblad dat 

De NAVO, begin volgende maand bijeen in Brussel, moet steun overwegen aan zijn Oost-Europese bondgenoten. Daarvoor heeft de Amerikaanse president Barack Obama gisteren gepleit bij de G7, op Japan na allemaal NAVO-lid.

Zonder externe vijand kan de interne cohesie niet veilig worden gesteld, en staat de positie van de elite onder druk, zoals de nazi-ideoloog Carl Schmitt benadrukte. Gezien de interne tegenstrijdigheden van het neoliberale systeem, waarvan nu ook een toenemend aantal westerlingen de dupe wordt, begint het er in toenemende mate op te lijken dat alleen een oorlogsdreiging als enige optie voor de macht overblijft. Een oorlog waarvan de aanvang en omvang door Washington worden bepaald en niet door Brussel, laat staan door de EU-lidstaten. Het failliete VS heeft belang bij een grootscheeps gewapend conflict, gezien zijn omvangrijke en machtige militair-industrieel complex. Daarentegen zal een oorlog voor het Europa van 'Geen Jorwerd zonder Brussel' een ramp van ongekende omvang betekenen. Opnieuw zal Europa bedreigd worden door de NAVO-doctrine van Mutual Assured Destruction (MAD), als uiterste consequentie van een langdurig conflict met Rusland en zijn bondgenoten. Opnieuw herhaalt de geschiedenis zich. Precies als onder president Eisenhower bepaalt het Amerikaanse militair-industrieel complex, waarvoor de oud-generaal en president tijdens zijn afscheidsrede in 1961 met klem waarschuwde, het beleid. In de jaren vijftig dankzij de bangmakerij voor het rode gevaar, nu als gevolg van de bangmakerij voor het terrorisme en voor Rusland en straks voor China. En ook nu is het angst dat van binnenuit komt, vrees van de machtigen voor de machtelozen, zowel hier als in de rest van de wereld, vrees van de intellectuele mainstream voor het verlies van status en inkomen, vrees van de belaagde middenklasse voor zowel de rijken als de armen, vrees voor De Ander. Over dit onderwerp schreef de gezaghebbende Amerikaanse auteur en Pulitzer Prijs-winnaar, Garry Wills, in het essay Total War (1976):

Our postwar world began, instead of ending, with a bang, and we did not intend to whimper. Instead, we bullied.

Bullied, for a start, our own citizenry. But that is part of any crusade. Eleventh-century crusaders first ‘cleaned out’ European ghettos, before getting to the Holy Land… In 1947, by proclamation of the President, we were back at war, and even liberals had long been telling Americans that war obliges them to hate the alien doctrine. We obliged. Communism became exactly what Fascism had been. Our propaganda effort had to be turned against the second enemy just as it had been against the first – Congressman Nixon must ‘encourage’ Hollywood to make anti-Russia movies.

De permanente westerse propaganda gaat er daarbij vanuit dat

In the war of minds, anyone not fully committed to the propositions of freedom is an enemy.

Dissidente stemmen dienen gemarginaliseerd te worden.  Het is niet merkwaardig dat de hoofdredactrice van De Groene Amsterdammer een column heeft in het concurrerende Vrij Nederland, alles is erop gericht te voorkomen dat de consensus onder de gelijk geschakelde pers wordt doorbroken, en vandaar dat Hofland zowel in NRC Handelsblad als in de voorheen kritische Groene zijn propaganda onweersproken kan bedrijven. Zolang hij maar betaald wordt, zal hij zelfs in Donald Duck zijn 'nobele leugens' willen ventileren. Tot zover punt a. Later punt b.


Beginning in 2002, and continuing after the 2003 invasion of Iraq, large-scale protests against the Iraq War were held in many cities worldwide, often coordinated to occur simultaneously around the world. After the biggest series of demonstrations, on February 15, 2003New York Times writer Patrick Tyler claimed that they showed that there were two superpowers on the planet, the United States and worldwide public opinion. [...] between January 3 and April 12, 2003, 36 million people across the globe took part in almost 3,000 protests against the Iraq war.

Desondanks beweert opiniemaker Hofland in De Groene Amsterdammer dat 'massale betogingen worden al jaren nergens meer gehouden. Dat is geen wonder.' 




March 26, 2015




Fifteen to 20 years ago, a canny friend of mine assured me that I would know I was in a different world when the Europeans said no to Washington. I’ve been waiting all this time and last week it seemed as if the moment had finally arrived. Germany, France, and Italy all agreed to become “founding members” of a new Chinese-created development bank, the Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank. Great Britain, in “a rare breach of the special relationship,” had already opted for membership the week before (and another key American ally deeply involved in the China trade, Australia, clearly will do so in the near future). As Andrew Higgins and David Sanger of the New York Times reported, the Obama administration views the new bank as a possible “rival to the World Bank and other institutions set up at the height of American power after World War II.” 

“The announcement by Germany, Europe’s largest economy,” continued the Times, “came only six days after Secretary of State John Kerry asked his German counterpart, Frank Walter-Steinmeier, to resist the Chinese overtures until the Chinese agreed to a number of conditions about transparency and governing of the new entity. But Germany came to the same conclusion that Britain did: China is such a large export and investment market for it that it cannot afford to stay on the sidelines.” 

All of this happened, in other words, despite strong opposition andpowerful pressure from a Washington eager to contain China and regularly asserting its desire to “pivot” militarily to Asia to do so. 

Whatever world we now inhabit, it’s not the twentieth century anymore. Though no other power has risen to directly challenge Washington, the United States no longer qualifies as the planet’s “sole superpower,” “last superpower,” “global sheriff,” or any of the similarly self-congratulatory phrases that were the coin of the realm in the years after the Soviet Union dissolved. 

Only one small problem, highlighted today by Pentagon expert andTomDispatch regular William Hartung: the Department of Defense evidently doesn’t have a clue. As he makes clear, it’s still planning for a sole superpower world in a big way. And in the present atmosphere in Washington, it’s got real support for such planning. Take, for instance, Senator Tom Cotton -- he of the "Senate 47" -- who just gave his maiden speech on the Senate floor calling for a policy of total U.S. “global military dominance” and bemoaning that “our military, suffering from years of neglect, has seen its relative strength decline to historic levels.” 

It may be a new world in some places, but in others, as Hartung makes clear, it couldn’t be older. Tom


Military Strategy? Who Needs It? 

The Madness of Funding the Pentagon to “Cover the Globe” 
 By William D. Hartung 
President Obama and Senator John McCain, who have clashed on almost every conceivable issue, do agree on one thing: the Pentagon needs more money. Obama wants to raise the Pentagon’s budget for fiscal year 2016 by $35 billion more than the caps that exist under current law allow. McCain wants to see Obama his $35 billion and raise him $17 billion more. Last week, the House and Senate Budget Committees attempted to meet Obama’s demands bypressing to pour tens of billions of additional dollars into the uncapped supplemental war budget.

What will this new avalanche of cash be used for? A major ground war in Iraq? Bombing the Assad regime in Syria? A permanent troop presence in Afghanistan? More likely, the bulk of the funds will be wielded simply to take pressure off the Pentagon’s base budget so it can continue to pay for staggeringly expensive projects like the F-35 combat aircraft and a new generation of ballistic missile submarines. Whether the enthusiastic budgeteers in the end succeed in this particular maneuver to create a massive Pentagonslush fund, the effort represents a troubling development for anyone who thinks that Pentagon spending is already out of hand.