My Other Blog & Comments

News and Information Feed

Saturday, December 23, 2006

Is Iraq war being fought for imperialism or Israel?

(By Chris Moore, -- Now that it is conventional wisdom in America (at least outside of politically correct Washington Beltway and mainstream media circles) that the U.S. was misled into the Iraq war by the Bush administration--quite possibly with the acquiescence of members of Congress from both the Republican and Democratic parties--the fight is on among patriotic Americans to determine the motives for the deception.

Rather than merely academic, a determination of motive may well be the first step in holding the perpetrators accountable, and may also be instrumental in determining America’s timeline for withdrawal from Iraq.

One theory is that the war was orchestrated by Jewish nationalists (Zionist Jews who support Israel’s current incarnation as an explicitly Jewish state) and Christian Zionists (adherents to a racialist interpretation of Christianity that mandates recognition of the Jews as God’s chosen people, and that wants to secure Greater Israel as their capital to the exclusion of other native peoples). Operating within and without the administration, this coalition arranged the war on behalf of Jewish security and other Israel-centered initiatives. Call this the War for Israel theory.

The Christian Zionist camp was represented by President Bush himself, who has reportedly hosted secret Middle East policy meetings with dispensationalist evangelicals, and figures such as former ambassador to the United Nations John Bolton, who has a long history of philo-Semitism and pro-Israel activism. (He routinely brags of being the principal architect behind the initiative that strong-armed the United Nations General Assembly to repeal the resolution that equated Zionism with racism).

The Jewish nationalist camp was represented by figures such as former Undersecretaries of Defense Paul Wolfowitz and Douglas Feith, and former chairman of the Defense Policy Advisory Board Richard Perle--all of whom have at various times over the course of their careers been investigated by federal agencies for misuse of American defense and intelligence information to benefit Israel, and all of whom were instrumental in propagating the false intelligence used to deceive Americans into war.

The other school of thought, often embraced by left-liberals squeamish about the implications of acknowledging that Jewish factions within government might be abusing their power (mainly because Jewish nationalists are prominent in the left-liberal governing coalition), is that the pro-war deception was motivated primarily by imperial and economic agendas, including U.S. control of the oil in Iraq, to feed the U.S. military-industrial complex, and to set up Middle East markets for U.S. goods and services. Call this the Imperial War theory.

Those with an open mind who currently subscribe to the Imperial War theory and are inclined to dismiss the War for Israel theory as the province of conspiracy theorists might want to read an interview that recently appeared in the popular Israeli news web site The interviewee was Meyrav Wurmser, an Israeli citizen, neocon ideologue, and the wife of David Wurmser, a current White House advisor to Vice President Dick Cheney on Middle Eastern affairs who was also John Bolton’s assistant.

David and Meyrav Wurmser, along with Perle, Feith and several others, were the authors of a 1996 report submitted to then-incoming Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu titled A Clean Break: A New Strategy for Securing the Realm. Among other initiatives, the report recommended that in order to “secure the realm” for Israel, Saddam Hussein had to be removed from power in Iraq.

In her interview with YNet, Meyrav Wurmser at first feigned shock at being accused of doing Israel’s bidding in the aftermath of America’s Iraq invasion by those who noted her connection to A Clean Break.

"Since I'm an Israeli in the gang, you wouldn't believe what's been written about me," she said. "That I'm proof of the covert neoconservative connection with Israel and the Mossad."

But amazingly, in the next breath she goes on to nearly admit that her neocon clique wrote the script for the White House that led to the removal of Saddam by utilizing the same template that they’d laid out for Netanyahu in Israel in 1996.

According to Meyrav, following the 9/11 attacks, the case made by the neocons (many of whom “are Jews who share a love for Israel,” notes YNet) went something like this: “The idea was that America has a war on terror and that the only actual place for coping with it is in the Middle East and that a fundamental change would come through a change in leadership. We had to start somewhere. The objective was to change the face of the Middle East.”

Note her last sentence: “The objective was to change the face of the Middle East.”

An astounding admission. She is essentially saying that within the White House, the argument being made by neocons (presumably to upper-level administration officials), was not that America should attack Iraq because Saddam Hussein possessed dangerous weapons of mass destruction and was connected to the 9/11 terrorist attacks on the U.S, and thus presented a major terrorist threat to Americans (the story later retailed by the administration to the American public).

Rather, the real objective among neocons was to pitch the narrative to Bush insiders “that America has a war on terror and that the only actual place for coping with it is in the Middle East;” to advance the notion within the administration “that a fundamental change would come through a change in leadership;” and finally to convince the administration that the leadership that should be changed was Saddam Hussein’s.

In other words, in order to “change the face of the Middle East,” America needed to begin by getting rid of Saddam Hussein. After all, “we had to start somewhere.”

What a coincidence. Getting rid of Saddam Hussein was exactly what David and Meyrav Wurmser, Richard Perle and Douglas Feith told Benjamin Netanyahu in 1996 that Israel needed to in order to secure its realm. So just whose realm were these neocons trying to secure?

Could this group’s ongoing connection to Israeli strategic planning possibly have been missed by Karl Rove, Dick Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld and the rest of the Bush brain trust? Highly doubtful.

For example, despite Feith’s checkered background, Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld hand selected him to head up the Office of Special Plans, essentially a custom-made Pentagon intelligence unit that was necessitated by the Central Intelligence Agency’s refusal to endorse specious Bush administration accusations against Iraq. Feith is suspected of using the unit to inject the retail “evidence”--that Saddam Hussein possessed WMD and that Iraq was connected to 9/11--into the U.S government intelligence stream, thus creating plausible public rationales for the war.

Larry Franklin, a committed Christian Zionist in Feith’s unit, has already been charged by the Federal Bureau of Investigation with espionage for his role in allegedly trying to deliver a classified draft of a presidential memo to AIPAC and an Israeli Embassy diplomat. (AIPAC--the American Israeli Public Affairs Committee--is a powerful Israel lobby operated primarily by Jewish nationalists who are U.S. citizens.) The FBI charges have raised the question of whether there was a channel between Feith’s office and Israeli intelligence units using AIPAC as the go-between that provided the false evidence used to manipulate the U.S. into war.

If there was, is it really possible that the Bush brain trust didn’t know about it?

And if Dick Cheney believed that the Jewish wing of the neoconservative movement had pulled a “fast one” on Iraq to secure the Israeli realm based on a game plan laid out in A Clean Break, would he really have retained one of its authors, David Wurmser, as his assistant on Middle Eastern affairs to this day?

No, the entire Bush administration knew exactly what the Israeli-loyalists in their midst were up to--and happily enabled the entire enterprise.

But the Bush administration may not have been the only branch of government that actively betrayed its moral, ethical and fiduciary duty to the American people.

The Congressional Role

That the Bush administration was riddled with fanatical Christian Zionists and Jewish nationalists with an ax to grind against Iraq was an open secret in Washington in the run-up to the Iraq war. In fact, Congress itself is comprised of politicians and aides who are either of the Zionist persuasion or who are willing to look the other way as the Israeli lobby basically dictates most aspects of U.S. Middle East policy because they fear the lobby’s power.

For example, in a letter to journalist Jeff Blankfort after he wrote an essay debunking left-liberal Noam Chomsky’s claims that imperial interests dictate U.S. Middle East policy and Israel is the country being used and manipulated in the relationship, Jim Abourezk, a former U.S. Senator from South Dakota, said his experience in Congress dovetails with Blankfort’s critique of Chomsky’s position.

“I can tell you from personal experience that, at least in the Congress, the support Israel has in that body is based completely on political fear--fear of defeat by anyone who does not do what Israel wants done. I can also tell you that very few members of Congress--at least when I served there--have any affection for Israel or for its Lobby. What they have is contempt, but it is silenced by fear of being found out exactly how they feel,” wrote Abourezk.

“Thus, I see no desire on the part of Members of Congress to further any U.S. imperial dreams by using Israel as their pit bull. The only exceptions to that rule are the feelings of Jewish members, whom, I believe, are sincere in their efforts to keep U.S. money flowing to Israel. But that minority does not a U.S. imperial policy make.”

But members of Congress may have more affection for the Israeli lobby than even Democrat Abourezk (the first Arab-American to serve in the U.S. Senate) is prepared to admit. In his essay on Chomsky, Jeff Blankfort noted:

“What gives the lobby its strength, besides its significant organizational skills, is that its members are intimately tied to Jewish organizations, federations, and community relations councils across the country, as well as to labor union officials and, in recent years, to the growing Christian evangelical movement, which provides Israel with unprecedented support in what is generally right-wing Republican territory.”

The lobby is intimately tied to both labor union officials and right-wing Christian evangelicals? That means it is intimately tied to key special interests of both the Democratic and Republican parties.

It is likely those very ties (and a desire for the money the lobby routinely spreads around to Washington politicians) were the unspoken reason members from both parties overwhelmingly voted to authorize the Iraq War Resolution on such weak evidence against Iraq.

That assessment seems to be backed by stricken comments made by Virginia Rep. James P. Moran on March 3, 2003, a few days before the beginning of the invasion: "If it were not for the strong support of the Jewish community for this war with Iraq, we would not be doing this," Moran told an antiwar forum in Reston, Va.

Of course, most members of Congress would never admit this. Congress clearly realizes that the idea of sending Americans to fight for a country as belligerent as Israel is loathsome to the vast majority Americans, who rate the Jewish state just a notch above Communist China in terms of conduct in areas of international peace and security, according to a recent survey.

Washington knows, as scholars John Mearsheimer and Stephen Walt quote Philip Zelikow in their paper on the Israel lobby, that sacrificing American troops and treasure on behalf of Zionism “is not a popular sell.”

“Some Americans believe that this was a war for oil, but there is hardly any direct evidence to support this claim,” write Walt and Mearsheimer. “Instead, the war was motivated in good part by a desire to make Israel more secure. According to Philip Zelikow, a former member of the president’s Foreign Intelligence Advisory Board, the executive director of the 9/11 Commission, and now a counsellor to Condoleezza Rice, the ‘real threat’ from Iraq was not a threat to the United States. The ‘unstated threat’ was the ‘threat against Israel’, Zelikow told an audience at the University of Virginia in September 2002. ‘The American government,’ he added, ‘doesn’t want to lean too hard on it rhetorically, because it is not a popular sell.’”

All of this raises the specter that everyone from the Congressional supporters of the war to the president himself have knowingly subordinated the best interests of the American people and U.S. military personnel to their own narrow religious agendas or because they are too cowardly to take on the Christian Zionists or the Israeli lobby with which they are partnering.

The fact that the Israeli lobby may be coercing and intimidating certain members Congress is irrelevant to the central fact of their betrayal and negligence; they are sent to Washington to represent American interests, not Israeli ones. If they don’t have the backbone to speak out against American soldiers being sent off to die in foreign lands for the sake of foreign interests, or worse yet, if they collaborate with those interests to knowingly sacrifice Americans on behalf of a foreign cause, they shouldn’t even be setting foot in the U.S. Congress, let alone “serving.” In fact, a strong case can be made that they should be impeached and tried for treason.

So was it primarily imperial interests, or Israeli interests that got America tangled in Iraq?
The only way Americans will ever know for sure is if there is a federal investigation of both the Bush administration and Congress in which the key players who were responsible for putting us there are hauled before a judge and forced to testify under oath.

In addition to holding the perpetrators of the Iraq quagmire accountable, such an investigation could also be instrumental in helping Americans make a determination on how quickly they should withdraw from Iraqi occupation. After all, if we are indeed fighting a war primarily for Israeli interests instead of American ones, should we really be paralyzed in fear over the supposed cataclysmic consequences of a withdrawal that certain self-serving apocalyptic political voices in Washington and in the media are painting?

Beyond that, such an investigation will help Americans determine whether or not it is really in U.S. interests to go to war with Iran, which seems to be the latest pro-war cause being pushed on Americans (or at least on their “representatives” in Washington) by the energetic and apparently eternally shameless Israeli lobby.

Chris Moore is publisher of

Saturday, December 16, 2006

Bush and the twopart

Bush and the two-party system’s outrageous insult to the will of the voters on Iraq

(By Chris Moore, -- “President George W Bush is poised to increase troop numbers in Iraq as part of a dramatic new strategy designed to regain control of Baghdad and suffocate the Sunni insurgency,” reports the British Telegraph.

"My gut tells me big – 30,000 to 50,000 or more troops,” said Stephen Biddle, a member of the neocon Council on Foreign Relations, following a meeting with Bush at the White House on Wednesday.

The latest Bush/neocon scheme to exploit yet more American troops on behalf of their three favorite causes--Empire, oil and Israel--is an outrageous insult to American voters who thought they had just purged the most treacherous warmongering factions from Congress in the November elections by eliminating the GOP majority that has written Bush a blank check on the Iraq war fiasco for the last three years.

Had the American people also been voting on the presidency, there is little doubt that Bush would have been shown the door as well. Unfortunately, they were not. And as it has in the past, having a Christian Zionist as Commander-in-Chief is again proving useful to those whose primary loyalties lie not with the American people, but with their own monetary and tribal religious ambitions.

Given the supine Democrats, who like so many of their two-party Washington GOP brethren have been bought of or intimidated by the Israel lobby and various other crass interests that couldn’t care less about the ultimate fate of the American people, it is little surprise that Bush and his coterie are so supremely confident that they can get away with yet another insulting act of warmongering chutzpah. In a sane political system, a Commander-in-Chief escalating a war by over 50,000 troops when the voters had just instructed their politicians to begin a drawdown would result in swift impeachment. Not so under America’s two-party political charade.

“Senior Democrats, who take control of both houses of Congress next year, have indicated they would support additional funds for U.S. troops in Iraq and Afghanistan, even though many want a phased withdrawal to begin in 2007,” reported Reuters recently in a story about Bush’s upcoming request for $100 billion more in war-making funds.

Democrats may have said they wanted a phased withdrawal beginning in 2007 in order to get elected, but given the huge influence of Jewish nationalist Zionists on the party (such figures as Rahm Emanuel, Joe Lieberman, and Chuck Schumer, to name just three), it is highly unlikely that such a withdrawal will ever take place on their watch. In fact, as a result of November elections, the number of Jews in the Senate rose from 11 to 13, and in the House of Representatives rose from 26 to 30; nearly all of the Jews elected from both parties are staunch Jewish nationalists financed with Zionist money.

Today we know that the entire invasion and occupation of Iraq was orchestrated not because of WMD or Iraq connections to 9/11 claimed by the Bush administration and members of Congress, but largely for the benefit of Israeli expansionism. So how likely is the new Congress, now even more under the sway of Jewish nationalist Zionists, to throw that spurious “achievement” away by withdrawing U.S. forces? Not likely at all, which explains Bush’s upcoming Iraq escalation--to be financed by “yes” votes on war spending from the new Democrat majority.

The only way Americans will ever achieve peace in their time is eliminate the two parties that host the agents of war for Empire, oil and Israel. America was attacked on 9/11 not because of its love of freedom and democracy, but because its politicians are controlled by special interests that pursue policies detrimental to the American people.

Is it really in the American people’s interests for their government to underwrite Israeli racism and expansionism in Palestine, the maintenance of authoritarian Arab regimes in surrounding countries, and guaranteed access to cheap oil by hugely profitable multinational conglomerates across the Middle East?

Of course not. But those initiatives, along with the military-industrial complex that hopes to profit from U.S. empire, are the true forces behind U.S. foreign policy that is destroying the very people it purports to represent.

So long as the U.S. operates under a political system wherein big money can be used to buy big government policy and political representation for foreign governments, the American people will not be in control of their own destiny--nor the destinies of their sons and daughters sent to fight and die for reasons other than what their professed “representatives” publicly proclaim.

*Chris Moore is publisher of

Saturday, November 11, 2006

Democrats illegitima

Democrats illegitimate beneficiaries of voter anger at US pro-war policy

(By Chris Moore, -- Those Americans who believe that the new Democratic control of the US Senate and House of Representatives signals a watershed moment of change in American foreign and domestic policy related to the Iraq war are likely to be gravely disappointed in the probable course of events over the next two years. There is a huge disconnect between the expectations of the wave of voters who turned out to register their disapproval of both the Iraq war and the authoritarian “war on terror” with its accompanying erosion of domestic civil liberties and the intentions of the narrow elite that sets the Democratic policy agenda.

The Democrats were big winners on November 7 not because they have any intention of responding to voters clamoring for foreign policy change in any meaningful way, but rather because they have shrewd political operatives who were adept at exploiting political winds in the months leading up to the election.

A plurality of Americans had turned against the Iraq war as far back as March, 2004 when an Annenberg Public Policy Center poll found that 49% of Americans thought the Iraq war was “not worth it” as compared to 46% who thought it was. Yet even as it became clear that the very presence of US troops in Iraq was fostering the terrorism they were purportedly put there to combat, the party never undertook a serious legislative bid to remove US troops from the region and allow the Iraqi people to begin the arduous process of political self-determination free from Washington’s attempts at coercive social-engineering. After voting to authorize the Iraq War in 2002, flip-flop Democratic Senator John Kerry’s resolution last summer calling for US withdrawal from Iraq by July 2007 was almost completely ignored by his own party and garnered only 12 Democratic votes. Instead, the Democrats engaged in empty rhetoric about “troop redeployment” without ever bothering to define what, exactly, that term meant and beginning the public and legislative process of making it happen.

Around the same time that Kerry was tepidly formulating a plan for withdrawal, likely 2008 Democratic presidential candidate Senator Hillary Clinton said in a speech “I do not think it is a smart strategy either for the president to continue with his open-ended commitment…nor do I think it is a smart policy to set a date certain” for US troops to leave.

Such fence-sitting and issue-straddling became the Democrats’ campaign strategy leading up to the election. They wanted (and ended up getting) credit from the voters for being nominally “against” the war, but they never detailed the manifestations of such a position--and still haven’t. Once it became politically expedient (and well after the vast majority of Americans had turned against the Iraq war) Democrats began registering regular public criticism of the Bush regime’s execution of the Iraq undertaking--but never its violent interventionist principles.

Its initial support for the Iraq war (recall that the Democrats controlled the Senate when the Iraq War Resolution was passed), its ongoing consensus support for the war in the years that followed, its tacking towards the anti-war position in the months leading up to the election in order to benefit from the anti-war surge--but without an accompanying willingness to act in any concrete way to stop the war--all show that the party hierarchy is more interested in attaining power than maintaining any kind of intellectual honesty and political integrity.

Nonetheless, as the nominal “opposition” party in the gerrymandered, government-enforced two-party system, the Democrats became the beneficiaries of the American public’s election day wrath against the war and its GOP sponsors. Their victory was by way of default and deception--and most certainly wasn’t a result of the party’s earnest desire to carry out the American public’s level-headed yearning to extract itself from the Iraq mess and other foolish, expensive and immoral interventionist initiatives that tax us at home and stretch us abroad.

Perhaps indicative of the status-quo direction the government is likely to take under the “new” Congressional leadership was the post-election call for bipartisan agreement to continue the two-party war against Islamofascism. Ken Mehlman, the chairman of the Republican National Committee, was quoted as telling Fox News that the "threat of Islamic fascism" was neither "a Republican threat nor a Democratic threat" and that there was "no reason we can't work on a bipartisan basis on an issue like that."

Echoing that sentiment was the putative Madame Speaker. From McClatchy Newspapers: ‘Nancy Pelosi, who's expected to be the next speaker of the U.S. House of Representatives, signaled Wednesday that she intends to steer a centrist course and work across party lines with President Bush to shape policy on Iraq, energy, Social Security and immigration…"Impeachment is off the table," she declared, spiking one dream that many liberal activists cherished…’

So "impeachment is off the table” but the open-ended war against the "threat of Islamic fascism" will go on. That’s the kind of “change” that the two-party system likes: cosmetic.

Chris Moore is publisher of

Friday, September 15, 2006

US Troops Trapped in

US Troops Trapped in Washington-made Catch-22

(By Chris Moore, -- In Joseph Heller’s novel Catch-22, the author constructs a famous bind for one of his protagonists, a U.S. Air Force bombardier by the name of Yossarian, whose conscience has violently revolted against his continuing participation in the war. In order to be dismissed from combat flight duty on medical grounds, however, Yossarian must first prove he is insane. The problem is, no sane person would want combat flight duty, hence Yossarian’s efforts to escape service prove he is not insane and is therefore fit to fly.

Yossarian’s dilemma is not unlike the quandary into which American troops serving in Iraq have been forced by the Bush administration and its Washington enablers, whose self-contradicting Middle East policies have put US forces in ongoing jeopardy and an unwinnable situation.

The latest chapter of Washington negligence finds the Bush administration angling for yet another US-instigated war, this time against Iran. The White House recently issued a new “National Strategy for Combating Terrorism” which declared that “Iran remains the most active state sponsor of international terrorism,” and continues to “harbor terrorists at home and sponsor terrorist activity abroad.”

“Most troubling is the potential WMD-terrorism nexus that emanates from Tehran,” the report cryptically adds, perversely invoking the pretext that the Bush administration used to take America to war with Iraq.

The report follows months of demonization from US government and neocon media opinion-makers of Muslims in general and Iranians in particular as “fascists” and “totalitarians.”

The problem for US troops on the ground in Iraq now is that in order to subdue the sectarian violence between Kurdish, Sunni and Shiite Muslims (and save themselves in the process), they need the cooperation of the country that Bush and the neocons are currently agitating for war against.

Why? Because Iraq’s Shiite Muslim majority has strong religious and ethnic ties to Shiite-majority Iran. In fact, many of Iraq’s current Shiite leaders were deposed by Saddam Hussein and spent their exile in Iran plotting and agitating against the tyrant, finally returning when US troops had purged him from power. Yet with all their rhetoric aimed at one of the only countries to give the Shiite people hope and safe-harbor from Saddam during his long and tyrannical rule, Bush and the neocons have methodically driven a wedge between US troops and the majority sect of the country to which they were deployed on a mission of “liberation.”

The repercussions have been drastic:

“The future of Iraq as a sovereign nation was thrown into jeopardy yesterday after a new law was introduced to parliament that would enable the break up of the country into semi-autonomous regions,” said a September 7 report in the Telegraph.

“If passed, a self-ruling Shia state is likely to emerge in the south, based on the autonomous region Kurds have already established in the north. It would not only be able to levy its own taxes and govern itself but, Shia politicians say, would have its own armed guards posted along its borders.”

"This is a guarantee to our sons and grandsons that injustice will not be revived," Abdel Aziz Hakim, the head of the Supreme Council for Islamic Revolution in Iraq (the Iranian-tied party that drafted the proposal), told the Telegraph.

“Iraq's Sunni community, which is bitterly opposed to the prospect, has warned it will mark the first step in the break up of the country and could lead to the south of Iraq becoming a satellite of Iran,” the Telegraph added.

So as Iraq’s long-beleaguered Shiite population moves closer to its religious and ethnic cousins in Iran for the sake of its own safety, Washington (which for years aided and abetted Saddam’s repression of the Shiites) is sending signals that it is likely to either invade or bomb Iran in the near future—which could well leave Iraqi Shiites again at the mercy of Washington’s former partners in persecution, the Sunnis.

This is hardly a recipe for encouraging Shiite cooperation with Sunnis in Iraq. After all, why would the Shiites want to take the pressure today off of a group with which they might be at all-out war tomorrow?

Meanwhile, US policy has also given Sunni militants, who are apparently behind the majority of attacks against US forces in Iraq, incentive to continue the sectarian violence as well.

They appear to be deliberately sowing chaos in order to either drive the US from the region altogether (which would increase their odds against the Shiites), or to encourage an American attack against Iran by forcing Washington into an escalation. From the Sunni perspective, such an attack would take the US heat off of their own sect and prevent southern Iraq from becoming the “Iranian satellite” they so desperately fear.

In both cases, the pivot is the prospect that the US might attack Iran. Each group is accounting for that scenario in its calculated strategy of rallying around its own sect and attacking the other, and in some instances attacking US forces as well.

Caught in the middle of all of this and being slowly picked off are US troops, who were originally sent to the region (supposedly) to de-fang Saddam Hussein —a mission they accomplished three years ago.

Of course, they were betrayed by the Bush administration once, when it turned out Saddam had neither the WMD nor the ties to the 9/11 terrorists that administration neocons claimed he did, but forced the troops into an untenable occupation anyway.

And today they are being betrayed yet again, the latest set of victims in the grand chess match that Washington has been playing in the Middle East for decades. This time it’s the US troops who have become pawns, and their chances of survival (let alone success) are being undermined by the contradictory and conflicting policies emanating from the very imperial leviathan that sent them overseas in the first place.

Little wonder, then, that even the Pentagon (which, despite everything, apparently still feels an iota of culpability for the fate of its soldiers) is openly contradicting the White House in its assessment of the situation in Iraq, albeit discreetly.

From a September 3 report in The Observer: “In his weekly radio address to the nation, Bush lashed out at critics of the war and portrayed the conflict in Iraq as an integral part of the war on terror. He said the country was not sliding into civil war…

“That may be true, but the tone of Bush's speech was deeply at odds with a Pentagon report released late on Friday, which showed Iraqi casualties had soared by more than 50 per cent in recent months. The Pentagon often releases bad news late in the week in order to minimise press coverage and the study certainly made for grim reading.

'Death squads and terrorists are locked in mutually reinforcing cycles of sectarian strife,' it noted. The report added that civil war was a possibility in Iraq, which seemed to jar with the message from the White House and top Republican politicians.”

The problem with Washington’s ongoing policy of Middle East machiavellianism is that despite its rhetoric, the US government simply does not want self-determination and democracy for Muslims. It will form mutually beneficial alliances with Sunni or Shiite autocrats, so long as they remain docile and compliant to American imperial and Israel-first policies. But as soon as one group or the other starts gaining traction en masse and becomes a viable, self-functioning entity, the US will cynically partner with its opposition to slap it back into subservience. This cycle has repeated itself ad nauseam for years.

The difference this time around is that the Bush administration is trying to use the US military to slap all of the players into subservience simultaneously (an impossible task no matter how many troops are deployed), and it is lying to both the military and the American people about its reasons for doing so. In effect, the US military has become just another savage force to be manipulated and coerced into doing imperial Washington’s bidding.

Our ruling elites may have been able to get away with this pompous indifference to human life when they were pitting “mere” Middle Easterners against one another, but now that they are haphazardly throwing American troops into their cynical machinations, their schemes appear to have finally caught up with them.

A recent Pew poll found that “By a 45% to 32% margin, more Americans believe that the best way to reduce the threat of terrorist attacks on the U.S. is to decrease, not increase, America's military presence overseas.” Another poll, by Harris Interactive, found that a plurality of Europeans view the United States as “the greatest threat to global stability.” And yet a third poll, this one by Ipsos-Public Affairs, showed that 60 per cent of Americans think there will be “more terrorism in the United States because the country went to war in Iraq.”

Such finding can only be read as a major rebuke to America’s political class, and a lack of confidence in both its integrity and its ability to conduct foreign policy in a manner consistent with the best interests and values of the people it professes to represent.

In Catch-22, Yossarian believes that because he is the only one sane enough to revolt against the war, his comrades are the ones who have lost their minds. If Americans don’t follow through and revolt against Washington’s insane policies in the upcoming elections, our troops trapped in Iraq may reach the same conclusion about the country that has forced them into this fool’s errand.

It’s too bad it took several thousand US casualties and perhaps hundreds of thousands of Islamic ones for Americans to begin realizing there is something deeply dysfunctional about their government’s Middle East policies. But better late than never, so long as they punish the guilty in both parties by eliminating those who still support the war at the ballot box.

Thursday, August 24, 2006

A religious motive for the Iraq war deception?

(By Chris Moore, -- Shockwaves from what more and more critics are saying was a Bush administration program to entangle the United States ever deeper into Middle East politics by deceiving the country into the Iraq war continue to reverberate through American society.

Testimony in the recent court-martial hearing of Army 1st Lt. Ehren Watada, who has been charged with refusing to join his brigade's deployment to Iraq, speaking contemptuously of the president and committing acts unbecoming an officer, has shone yet another spotlight on the possibly illegal means by which the administration secured the introduction of thousands of American troops into the Mideast under the pretext of eliminating Iraqi weapons of mass destruction from the hands of terrorists.

‘Most of the hearing was consumed by defense testimony, with three witnesses attacking the Bush administration's approach to the war and asserting that an officer could justifiably refuse to participate,’ said a Seattle Times account of the court-martial hearing.

“There was no authorization from the U.N. Security Council ... and that made it a crime against the peace,” said Francis Boyle, a University of Illinois professor of international law, who said the Army's own field manual required such authorization for an offensive war.

Boyle, an outspoken critic of the administration policy in Iraq, went into considerable detail about the rules for war as detailed in the Army Field Manual. He accused the administration of using fraudulent means to persuade Congress to authorize the war, twice-failing to get U.N. Security Council authorization for the war and then allowing war crimes to occur.’

Watada’s case may be bolstered by a new book by Thomas E. Ricks, a military reporter for the Washington Post. Titled ‘Fiasco: The American Military Adventure in Iraq,’ Ricks’ book says the Bush administration deceived the American public about the existence Iraqi weapons of mass destruction that the administration claimed could one day be used against America--weapons that an exhaustive post-invasion search failed to turn up.

‘It already is abundantly apparent in mid-2006 that the U.S. government went to war with Iraq with scant solid international support and on the basis of incorrect information - about weapons of mass destruction and a supposed nexus between Saddam Hussein and al Qaeda's terrorism - and then occupied the country negligently,’ Ricks writes.

In a review of ‘Fiasco’ for the Seattle Times, Bruce Ramsey takes note of Ricks’ venture into fleshing out the psychological motives that might have animated Bush and his Iraq war policy makers: ‘Ricks profiles Defense Undersecretary Paul Wolfowitz, an early champion of belligerency, and reveals how Wolfowitz's family's losses in the Holocaust shaped the way he thinks…Ricks argues that Bush and his senior advisers wanted a fight, and deceived themselves as well as the public about Iraq's ‘weapons of mass destruction.’ ’

This isn’t the first time Wolfowitz’s name has come up in relation to the allegedly deceitful use of his government employment on behalf of the pursuit of a personal vendetta or agenda. According to a 2004 report in Asia Times by Jim Lobe, ‘Wolfowitz was investigated in 1978 for providing a classified document on the proposed sale of a US weapons system to an Arab government to an Israeli official via an [Israel lobby] AIPAC staffer.

‘In 1992, when he was serving as under secretary of defense for policy, Pentagon officials looking into the unauthorized export of classified technology to China found that Wolfowitz's office was promoting Israel's export of advanced air-to-air missiles to Beijing in violation of a written agreement with Washington on arms re-sales.’

Douglas Feith, who served under Wolfowitz in the run up to the Iraq war, also has a checkered past of covert dealings on behalf of Israel. He was removed from his position as a Middle East analyst in the National Security Council in 1982 when he came under suspicion by the FBI for passing classified material to Israeli embassy officials, reports say.

In 2004 respected scholar James Petras took critical note of the large number of committed Jewish nationalists working in the Pentagon under Wolfowitz and elsewhere within the Bush administration and found that they were the driving force behind the Iraq war:

‘Wolfowitz, Feith, [Elliot] Abrams, [Richard] Perle, [Michael] Rubin et al were the most zealous promoters of the war against Iraq. They worked closely with other Zionist ideologues like Bush speechwriter David Frum to promote the notion of ‘axes of evil,’ to engage in a sequence of wars against Muslim regimes hostile to Israeli colonial policy in Palestine and beyond. Wolfowitz, Feith set up the parallel ‘intelligence’ agency (the Office of Special Planning) run by fellow Zionist Abram Shulsky using [Ahmed] Chalabi to provide phony data on Iraq to precipitate that war. An army of ‘Israel First’ academic and journalist ideologues wrote, spoke and acted to justify the US attack on Iraq as the first part of a regional war to destroy any and all regimes critical of Israeli expansionism.’

Certainly President Bush, Vice President Dick Cheney and Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld were well-aware of the record of shady dealings on behalf of Israel by Wolfowitz, Feith and other Jewish nationalists eventually hired by the administration. Federal agencies perform exhaustive security clearance checks on all recruits to national security-sensitive areas of the government prior to their employment, which means that the administration knew exactly what it was getting when it brought them into service--and likely waived any national security concerns raised.

In fact, given Bush’s apparent Christian Zionists religious beliefs (a recent Nation magazine report says that the White House holds secret Middle East policy meetings with dispensationalist Christians who believe that “supporting Israel's expansionist policies is ‘a biblical imperative’”), Wolfowitz and Feith’s staunch Jewish nationalist credentials and their reported history of attempting to advance that country’s interests through the co-opting of U.S. government resources on behalf of the Israeli agenda may well have been the exact characteristics the administration was looking for in those to whom it planned to entrust the formulation of America’s foreign policy.

In his testimony before the court-martial hearing, Lt. Watada’s expert witness Francis Boyle didn’t go into details about the motives of the Bush administration’s deceitful Iraq war initiative, only that the administration used fraudulent means to persuade Congress to authorize the war. To be fully effective, future critics may need to establish the administration’s motives as well. The Christian Zionist/Jewish nationalist religious/ethnic loyalties to Israel held by top administration officials may well be a good place to start.

Friday, August 04, 2006

If you support Israel, you support World War III

(By Chris Moore, -- Writing for, Sydney Blumenthal documents how Bush administration neocons and their apparatchik private-sector allies are trying to use the current Israeli conflict to widen the “war on terror” into World War III:

“Inside the administration, neoconservatives on Vice President Dick Cheney's national security staff and Elliott Abrams, the neoconservative senior director for the Near East on the National Security Council, are prime movers behind sharing NSA intelligence with Israel, and they have discussed Syrian and Iranian supply activities as a potential pretext for Israeli bombing of both countries, the source privy to conversations about the program says. (Intelligence, including that gathered by the NSA, has been provided to Israel in the past for various purposes.) The neoconservatives are described as enthusiastic about the possibility of using NSA intelligence as a lever to widen the conflict between Israel and Hezbollah and Israel and Hamas into a four-front war.”

Blumenthal says that because Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice may have qualms about widening the war (“recently she has come under fire from prominent neoconservatives who oppose her support for diplomatic negotiations with Iran to prevent its development of nuclear weaponry”) she has come to be seen as a thorn in the side of neocon plans for escalation.

"‘Dump Condi,’ read the headline in the right-wing Insight Magazine on July 25. ‘Conservative national security allies of President Bush are in revolt against Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice, saying that she is incompetent and has reversed the administration's national security and foreign policy agenda,’ the article reported.”

Blumenthal continues: “A month earlier, [neocon guru Richard] Perle, in a June 25 Op-Ed in the Washington Post, revived an old trope from the height of the Cold War, accusing those who propose diplomacy of being like Neville Chamberlain, the British prime minister who tried to appease Hitler…Rice, agent of the nefarious State Department, is supposedly the enemy within.
‘We are in the early stages of World War III,’ [Newt] Gingrich told Insight. ‘Our bureaucracies are not responding fast enough. We don't have the right attitude.’”

So now it is clear: first the neocons tried to spark World War III by lying America into a war in Iraq, which because so many neocons are also Jewish nationalists, was to be fought primarily by Americans on behalf of Israel. It didn’t work. Americans don’t want World War III because they know it would have to be conducted against all of Islam, which would be a war that neither side could possibly ever win on any decisive level; much of the world would simply become the new battle ground in a never-ending, Israeli vs. Palestinian style conflict which would accomplish exactly nothing except the devastation of lives, economies and infrastructures.

Because World War III via invasion of Iraq didn’t work, the neocons are trying a second, more direct route--through support of Israel: either America continues to support Israel, and follows wherever that path leads (and the neocons know it will lead to confrontation with Syria and Iran and eventually all of Islam) or it withdraws its support for the Jewish state altogether.

Brinkmanship junkies that they are, the neocons are betting America is dumb enough to continue to support Israel. And because they are also insane, the neocons think the resulting conflict with Islam can be won.

But look at what their previous thinking has wrought their favorite country: year after year of ongoing war--and this despite overwhelming military power by Israel, which has been thrown billions in aid and armaments by dimwitted American politicians and Jewish and Judeo-Christian supporters of Jewish nationalism for decades. If America invades the entire Middle East, it will be the exact same thing on a larger scale, as we have already seen in Iraq--yet another example of the destructive results of neocon ignorance and bigotry.

“Ideas have consequences” used to be a favorite conservative slogan. And it is true, they do. In the case of the neocons, stupid ideas have disastrous consequence, as their warped schemes have proven time and again.

So where are the Democrats on all of this? Like neocon Republicans, still staunch supporters of Israel--which makes them supporters of World War III by default.

As’s Justin Raimondo writes:
“The left-liberal wing of the Democratic Party, which is making political capital out of the Iraqi quagmire, has nothing to say about Israel's Lebanese quagmire – and especially not about our part in subsidizing and egging them on. The Democrats pushed to have Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki barred from speaking to a joint session of Congress because he had dared describe the Israeli invasion of Lebanon as ‘aggression’ – a faux pas in Washington no matter what party you belong to. Congress voted to endorse the murderous Israeli assault, without mentioning any need for restraint or deploring the targeting of civilians and Lebanon's infrastructure: there were only eight dissenting votes.”

The foot-in-both-camps Democrats, just like the hand-wringing Republicans who are too smart to want to conduct World War III, have tried to have it both ways for too long. They want to support Israel, but they don’t really want to wage a global war.

Sorry, but it is simply no longer feasible to have it both ways. Either you are a supporter of Israel, Jewish nationalism and World War III--and all that waging such a war on behalf of Jewish nationalism implies--or you are opposed to Israel, Jewish nationalism and World War III.

If you are in opposition, you must support the immediate suspension of all aid to Israel, military and otherwise, until it reforms its system into a democracy that ensures equal rights under the law for all instead of special rights for Jews over gentiles, which has resulted in its current quasi-fascist incarnation, and a big headache for America. This should be followed by a suspension of aid to all other Middle Eastern countries and regimes that do not meet the same equal rights standards. If this results in the temporary ascension of Islam, so be it. The free markets will deal with Islam in their own way and in their own time. The West may even learn a little something about maintaining higher moral principles from the Muslims in the process.

The alternative is World War III. The Jewish nationalists and their supporters in America won’t have it any other way.

Chris Moore is publisher of

Sunday, July 30, 2006

What will it be: Containment of Israel or World War III?

(By Chris Moore, -- Worldwide, the religion of Islam has about 1.3 billion adherents; Judaism has about 15 million.

The neocons, Judeo-Christian Zionists and Jewish nationalist Zionists (the three groups that make up Judeofascism in America) have always known that without American intervention, the long-term prospects for Israel in its current racialist incarnation are bleak. It is Jim Crow state of 7 million people, 77% of whom are Jews, who’s “democratic” government grants them privileged-class status over gentiles. And they reside amidst a sea of millions of gentile Muslims.

Additionally, the majority of Jewish Israelis (for a number of reasons, most of which have to do with sheer bigotry) despise those Muslims and have sought to root them out of their midst using government-organized terror and violence since Israel’s inception. (Occasionally, the Muslims have responded in kind.)

What, then, has become the phenomenon of a few million Jews (not including their fanatical Judeo-Christian allies) trying to take on an Islamic population many times their size is not unlike the early decades of the Soviet Union wherein a small minority of Jewish Communists joined with fanatical Marxist ideologues and used a powerful State to terrorize and murder millions of Christians, whom they also regarded as backward and inferior.

Because there were so many crypto Jewish nationalist in the upper echelons of the Communist Party in those days, critics of the Soviet Union, like critics of Israel today, were said to be “anti-Semitic” and opposed to the fair treatment for Jews that the Soviet state supposedly ensured. Not irrelevant to its current incarnation as a violently bigoted (national) socialist state, many Communist Jews later sought refuge from retaliation for their Soviet crimes against humanity in Israel, which welcomed them with open arms.

Like their statist Soviet pre-cursors, American Judeofascists have also operated by using a powerful central state and appropriating money and arms from its government to further their murderous cause. Only in this case, it’s the U.S. government; and Washington has been subsidizing Judeofascism for years at the behest of that movement’s various lobbies and lackey politicians in the form of aid to Israel. Most Muslims know this, as do most politically astute Americans.

And this is why America was attacked on 9/11.

On that fateful day, a group of Muslims, who believed they were acting on behalf of the dirt-poor Islamic masses, hit back against the country whose government has long supplied the resources used by Israeli Judeofascists to subjugate and murder them. They also hit back against the country whose government for years backed anti-Islamic Arab dictators like Saddam Hussein, who only after his invasion of Kuwait became an enemy of the U.S., mainly because it was feared he might one day also represent a threat to Jewish Israel and to oil-rich, U.S.-allied Arab tyrants. Today, our government still backs dictatorial Arab regimes in Egypt, Saudi Arabia and Jordan because like Saddam, they too are willing to pit their Muslim sects against one another in order to rule over the entire internecine mess with an iron fist--for the right price.

The only surprise about 9/11 was the fact is that it took Islamic militants so long to strike back domestically at the U.S. government for financing Jewish and Arab-authoritarian terror for so many decades.

It is unfortunate that innocent Americans paid the price for this instead of the Judeofascists themselves. After all, the average American is only culpable for Washington’s inhumane policies against Muslims to the extent that he or she has allowed the tenacious Judeofascist lobby to coerce the U.S. government into financing this ugly state of affairs.

But then, as a tiny minority here (just as it was in the Soviet Union), that is part of the Judeofascist strategy: burrow deep into the general population that it hopes to one day leverage against its enemies, attain positions of power and influence and then act in its name so that when that population is retaliated against, the Judeofascist-instigators can paint the hit as an attack on the entire society itself.

In the Soviet Union, Judeofascist Communists routinely and arbitrarily singled out Christians for persecution. When Christians sometimes violently defended themselves, the Judeofascist called this a “counterrevolutionary” or “terrorist” attack on the entire State and used it as an excuse to bring the wrath of the Soviet system down upon all “bourgeoisie” Christians, whose main trespass was subscribing to Christianity. (“Anti-Semitism,” by the way, was declared a crime in the Soviet Union.)

Former Israeli prime minister and ongoing neocon darling Benjamin Netanyahu unwittingly hinted at this strategy at play in contemporary America when, after hearing about the 9/11 attacks, he blurted out that they were “a good thing for Israel.” He said this because he knew that they would provide an opportunity for Zionist Fifth Columnists in America to begin the process of co-opting the U.S. military on Israel’s behalf to bring its wrath down upon Islam.

Of course, today we know that the U.S. government has been riddled with Zionists for years, mostly of the Jewish nationalist stripe, who are inextricably intertwined with Israel. Paul Wolfowitz, Douglas Feith and Scooter Libby are but three examples of open Jewish nationalists then working in the upper echelons of the Bush administration who were instrumental in manufacturing the “evidence” that led to the Iraq war from their positions within the government. And openly Jewish nationalist media figures such as William Kristol, Charles Krauthammer and Mort Zuckerman (who has owned the New York Daily News, US News & World Report, and Atlantic Monthly), are but three examples of Zionists who were crucial elements in the lie-America-into-war operation from the mass media end.

They and hundreds of other Jewish nationalist Fifth Columnists all used their positions of influence and power to disseminate false evidence against Saddam, and then relied upon the countless Judeo-Christian Zionists residing across middle America to provide the localized “grassroots” Fifth Column necessary to perpetrate the fraudulent Iraq war upon the American people and the Iraqis themselves.

Some of these Fifth Columnists are traitors to America, others are merely useful idiots being manipulated on behalf of Judeofascism. But recall what nearly all of them were shouting from the rooftops in the run-up to war: Saddam Hussein is connected to 9/11; Saddam Hussein has WMD; Saddam Hussein is a threat to America. And so we invaded.

Unfortunately for them, like most fundamentally deceitful enterprises tend to, the war has gone poorly. And even their numbers haven’t been enough to prevent more earnest representatives of the government, the media and the general public from getting to the truth: all their claims were lies.

After the invasion, even George W. Bush was forced to admit that Saddam had no connection to 9/11. And the WMD hunters his own administration sent to Iraq concluded that none were there to be found.

What does this tell you? Are these honest people? Were their pre-Iraq war certitudes honest mistakes? Or did they knowingly send American troops to Iraq under false pretenses? Given that the false evidence against Saddam was manufactured and disseminated mostly by Zionists, the answer should be self-evident: many of them knowingly betrayed America. So the question becomes…why?

Some say to monopolize oil, some say to perpetuate the Keynesian military-industrial-complex. I believe there are elements of truth to both of those theories. But I also believe the primary motive--the only one driven by a powerful combination of religion, ambition, emotion and ideology--was Israel. And it would take such fundamental forces to inspire these elements to perpetrate the diabolical betrayals that they have.

The Judeofascists were (and still are) eager to get even more Americans killed than died on 9/11 by sending our troops to Iraq in order to escalate the battle against Israel’s Islamic enemies to ever-greater heights. I believe Israel and its Judeofascist emissaries want to force America and eventually the entire West into a world war against all of Islam. They want this “clash of civilizations” so that American troops will die in the battle instead of Israeli ones, and they want it in order to increase the power of the capital of Judeofascism, Israel, so it can spread its megalomaniacal racialist beliefs across the Middle East and perhaps to the corners of the globe.

They are willing to use the U.S. military to accomplish this; they are willing to use nuclear weapons to accomplish this; and they are willing to use your children to accomplish this.

Will you let them?

The only way to stop Judeofascism is to root its most tenacious representatives out of the U.S. government; and to root those loyal to the Israeli government, both Christian Zionist and Jewish nationalist, out of American civil society. Of those who were knowingly involved in the operation to lie America into war, some should be arrested for treason, others merely deported to Israel--which is their primary loyalty anyway. That way they can be contained there the same way Ronald Reagan contained Communist ideologues in the Soviet Union: through the use of carrots and sticks.

Recall that Reagan frightened the Marxists with strength, but gave them incentive to reform. The combination, applied over a number of years, was enough to defeat them before the confrontation escalated to an all-out nuclear exchange. The Judeofascists should be similarly contained through limited American carrots (drastically-reduced aid to what will become a skeleton Israeli state) in conjunction and partnership with the stick of Islam, which will continue to intimidate and frustrate their diabolical ambitions through constant, steady pressure. That way Israel’s continuing existence will be a function of its ability to get along with its Islamic neighbors instead of a function of its ability to murder and subjugate them.

The alternative is a war with Islam instigated by Judeofascism’s American Fifth Column, which has already proven itself capable of epic acts of deceit and betrayal. And there is no reason to believe that if left unchallenged, the Judeofascists will stop at anything less than world war.

In response to Hezbollah’s defense of Islam and Lebanon against Judeofascism’s latest onslaught, neocon Judeofascist Newt Gingrich has already called upon the Bush administration to declare World War III. And such calls will only continue, either until Judeofascism is contained, or until it gets its way and achieves a mass conflagration in the service of its sinister, racialist vision carried out under the guise of attaining Israeli “security.”

Chris Moore is publisher of

Wednesday, July 19, 2006

Defeating Judeofascism in America

(By Chris Moore, -- For years, spineless and cynical left liberals have ignored the growing Judeofascist threat and sat idly by while the Israel lobby solidified its stranglehold over Washington. In fact, in many cases the left-liberals collaborated with the Jewish nationalist wing of the Judeofascist movement because so many of its members were Zionist Democrats and wealthy donors to the party. They still are.

Only recently, as the Judeofascists have grown ever more bold, lying America into a "preemptive" war of conquest and imperialism motivated by greed and the Zionist vision of a religious-based Middle Eastern hierarchy wherein Jews and Judeo-Christians are officially recognized as supreme, perpetual rulers (a state of affairs to be enforced by American troops), have the left-liberals started to make a few hesitant squeaks about the axis of Israel and fascism. The assault on Lebanon has served to highlight the extent of this axis, and so the squeaks have turned to whimpers.

Yet while they never hold their tongues in violently condemning the Christian Right for pursuing this vision, many on the left-liberal side continue to defend and make excuses for the Jewish nationalist wing of Judeofascism. This is because they want their cake and to eat it too: They want all that Zionist money that comes from Jewish Democrats who are staunch advocates of secularism in America (where Jews are in the minority) but fanatically Jewish-nationalist when it comes to Israel, where Jews are in the majority.

Hillary Clinton, John Kerry and Howard Dean (and the mentality they represent) think the Democrats can continue to blindly support Israel, take in loads of Jewish nationalist money from lefty American Zionists, condemn the Christian Right (which is made up mostly of Christian Zionists) and squeak through to victory in the midterm and 2008 elections without ever bothering to address the internal contradictions central to their entire campaign--namely, why is Jewish nationalism acceptable in Israel, but Islamic nationalism and Christian nationalism forbidden in the Middle East and America?

For that matter, why is persecuting religious minorities acceptable in Israel but wrong in America? Why is persecuting racial minorities, which Jim Crow Israel also does with impunity, forbidden here as well?

In summary, why in the Democrats’ view is the American government subsidization of religious nationalism, the persecution of racial and religious minorities, and the fascist bombing of Palestinian and Lebanese civilian “others” acceptable for Israel, but not acceptable for America?

I’ll tell you why: Because the Democrats are themselves latent Judeofascists. The Party has internalized the central Judeofascist mentality, namely that the world is divided between the “chosen” elite who do the governing, and what George Orwell in the novel 1984 called “the proles”—the ignorant masses whose government-prescribed function is to do what the government tells them to do. Hypocrisy is part and parcel of that mentality.

So if Hillary Clinton, John Kerry and Howard Dean in all their statist wisdom decide that a foreign policy riddled with internal contradictions is the way to go, then by God that’s the policy that the increasingly Orwellian U.S. government will pursue.

Which raises the question: Since that’s already the policy of the federal government under the Republicans, then what do we need the Democrats for? The GOP has shown that it can pursue the Judeofascist agenda far more effectively and with a lot less hand-wringing than the Democrats, so why bother with the Dems at all?

Because the Dems want to limit the Judeofascist agenda to the Middle East and won’t let it spill over into America? Wrong. In fact the pseudo-liberal, big-government Dems, who were always a little bit soft on Judeofascism when it operated under its Communist guise, are probably more likely to unleash the full fury of Judeofascism on America because the Party’s upper ranks are riddled with Jewish nationalists, even more so than the GOP.

And the Democrats have already demonstrated they will basically roll over for whatever policy the Judeofascists propose the second one of them starts accusing dissidents of “anti-Semitism”--and Americans who oppose the ongoing supremacist project in the Middle East will be accused of exactly that under the Dems, just as they have been under the Republicans. The only difference is that the politically correct Democrats, who have never met a big government Thought Police program they didn’t like, will probably take the already Orwellian federal bureaucracy to the next level domestically and let the Inner Party Judeofascists use it against “anti-Semitic” enemies of the state and “domestic terrorists” here just as they did in the Soviet Union.

You see, it has long been the authoritarian Judeofascist modus-operandi to infiltrate and use a powerful central State to bash in the skulls of its “enemies” (those who object to the innately bigoted Judeofascist agenda). It did so to the Christians, Ukrainians, Cossacks and dissidents in the Soviet Union and behind the iron curtain under Communism (until collaborator Stalin later turned on “the Jews,” which converted the formerly Trotskyite Jewish neocons to “liberalism” and later neoconservatism); its doing so to the Palestinians, and now the Lebanese in the Middle East under Zionism; its doing so to the Iraqis by proxy using the American military under neoconservatism; and it will do so to Americans domestically under neoconservatism or neoliberalism using the federal government through the Republicans or Democrats, as the case may be.

America may not be a tyranny yet, but make no mistake--if left unchecked, Judeofascism will take the federal government there sooner or later. That’s what it does; that’s what it is; that’s its nature. Most Judeofascists know this and accept it. All of the clever neocon, neoliberal rhetoric about valuing democracy, liberty and liberalism is designed to disguise this fact. Those who have closely studied Israel understand that the Judeofascists simply don't want equal rights for all, and never have. In fact, they are staunchly opposed the concept.

In the end there is no getting around the iron law of reality: Judeofascism is real, it is murderous and it is totalitarian. It existed in the Soviet Union and it exists today in Israel and as a fifth column in America. Pretending it is the figment of “anti-Semitic” imaginations will not make it go away. The longer it is ignored, the worse it gets, as Israel’s latest assault on Middle Eastern civilization demonstrates.

There is only one solution to Judeofascism in America, and that is to replace the pseudo-liberal Democrats with the classically liberal libertarians, who are in the same intellectual tradition as America’s Founding Fathers and, similarly, advocate its liberation from tyrannical rule.

That will give Americans a real choice between authentic liberalism and big government authoritarianism instead the false choice between the authoritarian-Left Democrats and the authoritarian-Right Republicans forced upon us today.

And if Americans choose classical liberalism (and if they know what’s good for them, they will) the Judeofascist threat will be removed by hamstringing the instrument of its evil designs: the State.

Chris Moore is publisher of

Wednesday, June 07, 2006

Zionist fanatics and the threat to America’s future

(By Chris Moore, -- "The Israel Lobby and U.S. Foreign Policy" by respective University of Chicago and Harvard University scholars John Mearsheimer and Stephen Walt is a groundbreaking study cataloguing Zionist influence over the federal government’s Middle East policy. It has unleashed a torrent of pent up frustration over the American Establishment’s failure to address (let alone redress) a root cause of the dysfunctional policy-making process that triggered the terrorist attacks of 9/11 and the disastrous Iraq war that followed.

Unfortunately, the most intelligent analyses of the study have been limited to internet publication, and have yet to see the light of day in the mainstream media.

In his article on the tepid mainstream response to the study (published on, Stephen Sniegoski aptly summarized its findings:

"Mearsheimer and Walt maintain that the pro-Israel lobby, made up of an extensive network of journalists, think-tankers, lobbyists, and officials of the Bush regime — largely but not solely of Jewish ethnicity — has played a fundamental role in shaping American Middle East policy. The lobby's goal has been to enhance Israeli security, which could very well be at the expense of U.S. interests. The risk of that has become especially apparent with the war on Iraq, for which the pro-Israeli neoconservatives served as the ‘driving force.’"

Sniegoski assesses that many non-Jewish Americans would prefer to remain in denial about the extent of Zionist power in this country than face up to the facts and confront the problem head on. This is largely the result, he implies, of a sort of Soviet-like psychological conditioning carried out by Zionist opinion makers.

"To a certain degree, [white gentiles] have internalized the moral compass of the Israel lobby: that offending what seems to be a Jewish interest is worse than lying; that propitiating officially recognized victims is more important than truth."

Sadly, this is largely true—even to the point that today, many "respectable" gentiles would rather acquiesce to another foolish and unnecessary war detrimental to American interests (this time against Iran) than confront the truth staring them straight in the face: namely that Zionist operatives, both Christian Zionist and Jewish nationalist, are largely dictating American foreign policy on behalf of Israeli interests and at the expense of America’s future.

The psychological reasons behind the fact that many white gentiles today are too cowed to fight back against a major threat to their own children’s future are many and complex. Sniegoski touches on a couple of important ones, though.

Mindlessly obeying politically correct taboos, he says, is "the ultimate survival trait in modern American society…it is far easier and safer simply to conform to the prescribed opinion." Most people, he adds, "so that they may reach and remain in the ranks of profitable respectability, take care to hold no strong views."

Those two societally and self-imposed mandates—the maintenance of "political correctness" and "profitable respectability"—working in tandem, are key to understanding the grip that the Israel lobby has over Washington, and in many respects the rest of the country as well. It is no coincidence that one (political correctness) is considered a function of the Left, while the other (the pursuit of profitable respectability) a function of the Right, because that is how the lobby has attained its tremendous power—through a policy of triangulation.

To force the Left into acquiescence, the lobby has made support for Jewish Israel a politically correct litmus test. Anyone who consistently opposes Israel or its policies is sooner or later subjected to accusations of racist "anti-Semitism." This is ironic, and highly disingenuous given that Israel is an officially segregationist state granting special rights and privileges to Jews over non-Jews. But under the current American zeitgeist, faux anti-Semitism at home trumps institutional Jewish racism in Israel every time.

In fact, in America, anti-Semitism—even more so than racism—has come to be seen as the ultimate thought crime. The U.S. State Department recently swore in a special envoy whose entire job consists of monitoring and combating anti-Semitism. (This too is ironic given that besides Jews, many Arabs are a also a Semitic people, which should put most neocons, who are constantly haranguing against Arab "Islamofascism," on the special envoy’s watch list—but won’t.)

Imagine if a special federal envoy was created to combat anti-Catholicism or anti-Russian-Orthodoxism or anti-Islamicism, all of which also have histories of mass persecution. Every group would want their own special federal protector. But only anti-Semitism is entitled to a special envoy, which is a deliberate message being sent by the federal government.

While not necessarily incontrovertible evidence that all Americans have internalized the Israel lobby’s moral compass, it does suggest that large factions of the U.S. government have. (So much for the separation of Synagogue and State.)

This is due in no small part to Zionists and their sympathizers working not only through the government, but through mass media and other cultural institutions to imprint on the American psyche the notion that few faux pas are greater than criticizing Jewish group behavior, or even Jewish initiatives such as Zionism and Israel, because such criticism can ultimately lead to "another Holocaust".

Steven Spielberg’s Schindler’s List immediately comes to mind as the best-known example of this kind of imprinting, but thousands of ethnic Jews and Leftists working through every mass medium from film and television to newspapers and books have labored over the years to advance this neurotic mindset. Taken individually, their work is innocuous enough, but collectively, the sheer volume of "Jewish victim" scholarship, agitprop, investigation, reporting, and general canon has forced America, ostensibly a multi-cultural society, to focus and fixate on the tragic historical experience of a tiny minority.

Is it any wonder then that even though Israel makes up only .002% of the world's total population, and has the highest average living standards in the Middle East with a per capita GDP of almost $25,000, it is granted nearly 33% of the American foreign-aid budget? Selfishness doesn’t even begin to describe the injustice of this ridiculously disproportionate state of affairs.


There were many different motives behind the concerted effort to transform the Holocaust from just another example of statist mass murder (which, unfortunately is all too historically banal, starting with the mass killings carried out by Soviet Communists, through World War II Nazi atrocities, Maoist China and Africa today) to a "unique" and now universally known cautionary tale of almost holy import.

For ideological American Jews, the motivations were several: 1)an earnest (if not rational) fear of the American Christian majority; 2) to glorify their own ethnicity (and by extension, themselves) as both righteous victims and morally superior survivors vis a vis their philistine neighbors; 3) to promote the notion of Jewish exceptionalism, which is merely a modern update on their biblical claims of "choseness"; 4) to aid in the maintenance and prosperity of Israel as a sanctuary for this deified group; and 5) to use as an ecumenical blunt instrument against Christianity, which shrewd Jewish leaders designated as a convenient scapegoat for the Holocaust. (This last had the incidental effect of drastically eroding Western Christianity, which opportunistic Jewish Zionists, joined by their Christian neocon brethren, have managed to help reinvent in the U.S. as the more Israel-friendly, post-World War II coined Judeo-Christianity practiced by many evangelicals today.)

Shrewd non-Jewish Leftist leaders also used the Holocaust as a political tool. Like their manipulative Jewish contemporaries, they were also motivated by a hatred of Christianity, but less for its supposed anti-Semitism and more because Christianity has historically acted as a natural check against Communism. Leftists were additionally motivated by the fact that elevating the importance of the Nazi-perpetrated Holocaust diminished the focus on the Communist-perpetrated ones, which they have long labored to sweep under the historical carpet (for self-evident reasons).

Of course, many earnest Jews and liberals are today horrified that Israel, the neocons, Jewish nationalists and Christian Zionists are using the moral capital that they diligently helped to assemble on behalf of a "historically oppressed group" to impose and justify Israel’s apartheid system, which (if the emerging Judeo-Christian coalition gets its way) will be made the model for all future Middle East invasions and occupations instigated and enforced by American troops.

Worse yet, the Israeli model may ultimately be forced by the Judeo-Christians on America as well, which would threaten 2,000 years of intellectual progress under Christianity and Classical Greco-Roman thought in order to replace it with a new civilization patterned on an immature Jewish state that uses its police powers to mandate racial and religious barriers and legally impose second and third class status on gentiles. Who will be the gentiles of America’s future? Why the non-Judeo-Christians, of course.

That Israel has been in a state of perpetual war since its founding as a result of this political model in no way seems to deter the Judeo-Christians so enamored by the Israeli system. In fact, it seems to invigorate them. And perpetual war is what the rest of us can expect if they are allowed to have their way.

The old adage "be careful what you wish for, you just might get it" seems to apply to both Jewish liberals and Leftists to a greater extent today than at any time since they got their death-dealing Communist dream state in the Soviet Union: Wish for the decimation of Christianity, get the far worse and more intolerant Judeo-Christianity in its place.


The second part of Sniegoski’s explanation for white gentile trembling in the face of the Israel lobby, "respectable profitability," as noted, is largely a function of the American Right.

If the average white American liberal lives in fear of being designated a heretic for violating stringent politically correct speech codes by telling the truth about Israel and its lobby, the average U.S. conservative who might be inclined to broach the subject lives in fear that doing so might cost him some money—and so doesn’t.

After all, the business of America is business, and why should Main Street Joe capitalist risk even one thin dime for something as abstract and intangible as truth and justice, neither of which hold any currency in post-Christian, politically correct, Judeo-Christian America?

And if Joe capitalist isn’t interested in the subject, the short-sighted Big Business hyper capitalists who own the American Right today are positively hostile. Like the historical materialist Marxists who reside on the flip side of their intellectual coin, the international profiteers believe everything essential in life comes down to access to money and material goods. And they are willing—indeed, eager—to abandon all principles, loyalties and pedestrian notions of patriotism that might get in the way of their multi-national bottom line.

Perhaps because it is blinded by greed, American business can’t see that in the long run, allowing the Israel lobby to continue to run rampant is going to cost it, and cost it dearly.

How many hundreds of billions of dollars did the 9/11 attacks cost the American economy? How much has the Israel-lobby instigated Iraq war cost American business through high oil prices, unstable stock markets, a strained U.S. budget and economically beleaguered American consumers? How many billions more will another terrorist attack or another war cost U.S. businesses and taxpayers?

Virtually all of the Islamic terrorists who have issued statements addressing their reasons for attacking America, both before and after 9/11 (including bin Laden) have listed the U.S. government’s blind loyalty to Israel as a primary motive for their aggression. In fact, virtually all Islamic terrorist who have attacked America or American positions anywhere in the world in the last 10-15 years cite our one-sided support of Israel as a major source of their rage.

It is likely that had the U.S. government not been so one-sided in its support of Israel, America would never have been attacked on 9/11, and the neocons would thus have never gotten the opportunity to lie us into a war with Iraq.

Yet rarely is this reported in the mainstream media, let alone in the business journals, and so American business blunders on under the false impression that because Israel is a favorite Jewish American and Christian Zionist cause, it is financially better off either openly siding with the Israel lobby or keeping its mouth shut about its power altogether.

Not unlike the selfish, dim-witted Leftists who refused to look more than a couple of years down the road and so suckled, cradled, sheltered and help raise up the Zionist infant out of political expediency, the equally dense, greed-driven Big Business capitalists can’t see beyond next quarter’s financial results and so ignore today’s full grown Zionist monster who is straddling America, Israel, and now Iraq, baiting the increasingly angry Islamic masses to attack in order to force American retaliation.

But Big Business isn’t alone on the Right in its see no evil, hear no evil approach to the Israel lobby. As mentioned earlier, the Judeo-Christians—the primarily evangelical group of Christian Zionists so in love with the racialist Israeli model—are also to blame for giving Israel a free ride at America’s expense these many years.

Certainly, this group has been used and manipulated by Jewish nationalist Zionists, who have systematically gone about constructing a Christ-minimizing, Old Testament-emphasizing, Judeo-centric reading of the bible that highlights the importance of the Jewish people as the group "chosen" by God to deliver His word. But the Judeo-Christians have allowed themselves to be used; in fact, their leaders have encouraged and contributed to their exploitation by painting the "success" of Israel (meaning its ability to carry on as a Jewish supremacist state) as a validation of their entire religion.

Endless biblical passages are cited by the Judeo-Christian leadership as "proof" that Israel is fulfilling biblical prophecy, and the partnership between Jewish and Christian Zionists has proven a fruitful money-making enterprise for both camps. After all, what better way for these new Pharisees to separate believers from their money than to convince them that that they are an essential component to the realization of the predictions outlined in the holy book and now playing themselves out in real time today?

One of their favorite, constantly cited biblical passages in justification of shoveling ever more money and weaponry toward Israel is Genesis (12:3), in which God promises Abraham and his offspring that "I will bless them that bless thee, and curse him that curseth thee."

Of course, this citation conveniently ignores Jesus’ later, eternal curse upon the corrupt and calculating Jewish Pharisees (the group that brought racism to Israel) articulated in John 8: "If you were Abraham's children, you would do the works of Abraham…You belong to your father, the devil, and you want to carry out your father's desire."

A strong case can be made that the neocons and Zionists who painstakingly provoked the Islamic attack on 9/11 and then opportunistically used the resulting atmosphere of anger and hysteria to lie America into war are the Pharisees of our day—as are the many members of the White House, Congress and the Washington Establishment catering to their agenda at the cost of America’s integrity, and possibly its very future.

(Chris Moore is publisher of

Tuesday, February 21, 2006

"Secular" Provocateurs Deliberately Inciting Islam

(By Chris Moore, Two recent events have inspired the anti-Islamic, "clash of civilizations" cheerleaders to step up their ongoing cause of triggering a world war -level conflagration against "Islamofascism," (a code word for Islam increasing embraced by the "secular" Western Establishment, including President Bush). The first was the overwhelming Palestinian vote for Hamas candidates in democratic elections in the occupied territories; the second is the so-called "cartoon riots" that have ensued after publication of Muhammad caricatures first in Denmark, and later in other parts of Europe.

Predictably, warmongers in the mainstream media and elsewhere have cited both as evidence that the religion of Islam is congenitally flawed, and hence innately incompatible with Western values—indeed, with human values: When given the vote, it elects militantly violent Islamic representation; when exposed to freedom of the press, it riots if that press prints something offensive to Islamic law—or so the media campaign goes.

Here are some examples of how opportunistic mainstream media demagogues have attempted to use the two events to either negatively stereotype the entire religion of Islam, or indict components of it, and then infer its general loathsomeness through innuendo and linkage.

"The current uproar over cartoons of the Muslim prophet Mohammed published in a Danish newspaper illustrates yet again the fascist intolerance that is at the heart of radical Islam.…That anything so mild could trigger a reaction so crazed — riots, death threats, kidnappings, flag-burnings — speaks volumes about the chasm that separates the values of the civilized world from those in too much of the Islamic world…Make no mistake: This story is not going away, and neither is the Islamofascist threat." —Jeff Jacoby, Boston Globe syndicated columnist

"There are serious differences between German or Italian fascism and Hamas' Islamism. But these are largely intellectual and academic distinctions…[Hamas is] dedicated to restoring national pride at the expense of exterminating millions of people, who just happen to be Jews…If the new government had the means, it would be Palestine's willing executioners." –Jonah Goldberg, Los Angeles Times syndicated columnist

"What passes for moderation in the Islamic community — ‘I share your rage but don't torch that embassy’ — is nothing of the sort. It is simply a cynical way to endorse the goals of the mob without endorsing its means…These are not defenders of religion, but Muslim supremacists trying to force their dictates upon the liberal West," Charles Krauthammer— Washington Post syndicated columnist

"Like the earlier Nazis, our generation's fascists hate anything good, not merely Jews and Americans…Nowhere in the world is there anywhere near the religious bigotry and sheer hatred of other religions that exists in the Muslim world…"-- Dennis Prager , national radio talk show host, Jewish World Review columnist

The rhetoric echoes Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld’s generations-spanning, "long war" assessment of the threat posed by Islamic militants: "They will either succeed in changing our way of life, or we will succeed in changing theirs," he gravely declared in early February.

In other words, it’s us or them. And so by now, as the West can clearly see (through means of repetition alone) Islam = fascism, Muslims = Nazis, and Americans and Europeans must either wage World War III against the gathering "Islamofascist" threat, or prepare to abandon our very way of life.

But a closer look at the two events that triggered such gnashing of teeth and fits of enmity suggests something else: that the Muslims were baited, even encouraged into rioting in response to the Muhammad caricatures printed in Europe; and that in electing Hamas, the Palestinians were merely voting in an Islamic counter-balance to the Jewish nationalist racialism of Israel, the state on who’s behalf so many Western opinion makers and political leaders are bent on waging a third world war.

Indeed, that Israel is an institutionally racist entity is more or less a settled question. Some in America still go through the motions of declaring it a "democracy" in order to justify the billions in welfare subsidies Washington still provides it annually, but those objective parties who have studied Israeli law long ago concluded that its many layers of segregationist restrictions favorable to Jews and punitive toward non-Jews qualify it for apartheid status. Instead of dividing black and white, however, Israel’s laws essentially codify first class citizenship for Jews and second class citizenship for Gentiles in general and Palestinians in particular. It’s a different kind of bigotry, but Israeli parallels to the Jim Crow south are striking.

In fact, in a secretly recorded speech, Yuval Diskin, the head of Israel’s domestic security bureau Shin Bet, recently confessed that the Israeli security services and judiciary have two standards of justice—one for Arab suspects and another (more lenient) for Jewish ones.

But Palestinians living under Israeli rule in the occupied territories have it even worse than their brethren in Israel. Their day to day existence, at the mercy and whim of heavily-armed Israeli soldiers and militant Jewish settlers, is a nearly Gulag-like experience. In fact, conditions there are so brutal, the Church of England recently voted to end financial investments in companies supporting Israel's occupation of the Palestinian territories.

Given that American support of Israel is a throwback to the Cold War era, when its racialist transgression could be overlooked because it was supposedly our ally against the Soviet Union (although even that assessment is debatable) by rights, Americans should by now have demanded a reassessment of our country’s "special" relationship with such a stubbornly segregationist enterprise.

This is one of the reasons why "Christian" Zionists, Jewish nationalists and their friends in the media are so eager to magnify and exaggerate the threat the Islamic world supposedly poses to the West: A war against Islam would reaffirm the cover of "ally" that Israel exploits to escape Western scrutiny and uses to maintain a blanket of secrecy over its ongoing, state-sanctioned bigotry.

(Sidebar: Such a war would also affirm the 21st Century reinvention of Christianity by advocates of the "Judeo-Christian" school of history as a philo-Semitic, Israel-centered bodyguard for Zionism. Theologically speaking, of course, Christianity has very little in common with Judaism—Jesus was in fact rebelling against what he came to regard as a corrupt and hypocritical belief system. His break was so complete that an entire new religion grew up around his dissidence. But few will ever accuse the opportunistic retailers of the myth of "Judeo-Christian civilization"—a phrase that only came into widespread usage after World War II—of intellectual coherence.)

A current example of the commonplace dissembling by Israeli loyalists is their claim that Hamas is "fascist" and bent on Jewish "extermination." Of course, they leave out of their tirades the fact that, for many years, Israel’s Mossad helped finance that Islamic party. (It seems the Israeli government wanted to keep the Palestinian people hopelessly divided between Hamas and the ineffectual, secular and socialistic Palestine Liberation Organization so that they would be easier to subjugate.) If the Isrealis really regarded Hamas as an existential threat, they would never have given it even one thin dime.

But hurling false "fascist" epithets at Muslims isn’t always enough. It takes more than that to spark a "clash of civilizations" level riot, and that’s where friends in the media, and caricatures of Muhammad come in handy.

Blogger xymphora provides us a sketch of how the plot to incite Muslims to riot by ridiculing their prophet in print progressed:

"The initial European salvo was to solicit the material and publish it in a Danish newspaper. It didn't work. In fact, there were peaceful Muslim protests… Danish Muslims behaved in exactly the responsible way that the current critics of the violence say they should have behaved. In response, they got nowhere with the legal system -- apparently it is only illegal [in Europe] to make fun of Jews…"

"Since the cabal of Europeans did not get the response they wanted from publication in Denmark, they decided to escalate, first by publishing in Norway, and then by publishing throughout Europe. This re-publication was all based on the completely bogus explanation of expressing solidarity with the free speech rights of their beleaguered Danish colleagues. Of course, free speech was never the issue. The cabal wanted to provoke the kind of violent protests in the Middle East that it felt would be useful in promoting ant-immigration policies in Europe, and defending the Israeli violence against the Palestinians."

As Washington DC-based investigative journalist Wayne Madsen reported on February 5th, other neocon collaborators around the globe then took the baton:

"Neo-con media outlets such as The New York Sun, Fox News, and others are having a field day with the Muslim riots that have spread around the world in protest over the cartoons just as they had with the French "Muslim" arson attacks. Two New Zealand papers -- The Dominion Post in Wellington and The Press in Christchurch, have published their own controversial cartoons of Mohammed."

"The papers are owned by Australia's Fairfax Group, which also owns Melbourne's Age, and which was once financially connected to indicted neo-con Lord Conrad Black's scandal-ridden Hollinger publishing empire, which also includes arch neo-con Richard Perle. The Fairfax Group generally adheres to the neo-con corporatist party line."

But there’s more, because as it turns out, Flemming Rose, the cultural editor of the Danish newspaper who originally commissioned and published the caricatures of Muhammad that ended up sparking the riots, is apparently sympathetic to the anti-Islamic cause.

Christopher Bollyn of American Free Press notes: "Rose traveled to Philadelphia in October 2004 to visit Daniel Pipes, the Neo-Con ideologue who says the only path to Middle East peace will come through a total Israeli military victory. Rose then penned a positive article about Pipes, who compares ‘militant Islam’ with fascism and communism. In April 2003, President George W. Bush nominated the rabid anti-Muslim Pipes to the board of the United States Institute of Peace, a congressionally sponsored think tank dedicated to ‘the peaceful resolution of international conflicts.’"

Pipes, a fanatical Jewish nationalist, is probably most infamous for the following quip, written in the flagship neocon magazine National Review: "Western European societies are unprepared for the massive immigration of brown-skinned peoples cooking strange foods and maintaining different standards of hygiene...All immigrants bring exotic customs and attitudes, but Muslim customs are more troublesome than most."

And Pipes’ interlocutor Flemming Rose apparently agrees—which is why he so desperately wanted to "prove" to Europe that Muslims couldn’t be assimilated by going well out of his way to orchestrate an Islamic riot.

So it seems what we have is a sort of conspiracy of chauvinistic "secular" provocateurs. Zionists in Israel impose Jim Crow laws and hurl racialist abuse upon the Arab and Islamic minority; sympathetic Jewish nationalists and dimwitted "Christian" Zionist in the diaspora do all they can to provoke Islamic rage and retribution by deliberately printing blasphemous caricatures of Muhammad and then declaring Muslims "fascists," "supremacists" and "Nazis" when they angrily respond; the anti-Islamic forces then all join together to call upon Western civilization to smite the offensive "brown-skinned" Muslims because they are prone to violence.

Wouldn’t it be ironic (or is a better word Satanic) if America and Europe were to wage World War III against "our generation's fascists" on behalf of a religiously chauvinistic, racialist vision of the future modeled after segregationist Israel—and then pass the entire exercise off as a defense of the "secular" West? What a hellish recipe for generations of perpetual war. The Antichrist himself could hardly ask for more.

The whole ungodly enterprise brings to mind an observation, made by author and scholar Norman Finkelstein in his book Beyond Chutzpah: The Misuse of Anti-Semitism and the Abuse of History, about how Zionist totalitarians who hurl the "fascist" epithet today are engaging in a similar modus operandi as their Soviet precursors:

"[T]his is a direct throwback to the darkest days of Stalinism, when those criticizing the Soviet regime were, by virtue of this fact alone, branded ‘objective’ abettors of fascism, and dealt with accordingly…One day it’s the uniqueness and universality of theological absolutism; the next day it’s the uniqueness and universality of the Holocaust. The constant is the totalitarian cast of mind, and attendant stigmatizing of dissent as a disease that must be wiped out by the state."

In this case, Islam is the "disease," and our scheming, mentally unbalanced "elite" want to use the U.S. military to wipe it out, or at the very least, subject it to a massive authoritarian program of government control by employing invasions and puppet dictators willing to put their own people in a secular straight jacket to do so.

If Christians and Americans are still capable of utilizing the shrewdness and common sense they have so often employed to solve problems in the past, instead of waiting around for their compromised and co-opted rulers to do the right thing by their own country, the West, and Islam, they will instead cast the entire traitorous U.S. political establishment, including the myriad useful idiots on the Left, into elective purgatory. Only then will progress be made toward a just peace with our Islamic neighbors. Only then will sanity return to our increasingly unhinged country. Only then will well-intentioned people of all faiths and creeds be safe from the bigoted, hate-filled, Zionist fanatics bent on inciting violence and then using the "national security" pretense to control our every thought and deed on behalf of a vision of perpetual war.