My Other Blog & Comments

News and Information Feed

Monday, December 17, 2007

What is "Judeofascism"?

(By Chris Moore, -- What do Bolshevism, Zionism and Neoconservatism have in common? In addition to being murderous, elitist, authoritarian and organizationally insular, they are all mass political movements in which Jewish ideologues played decisive and even definitive roles. In fact, without the Jewish contribution to each, they likely all would have been rendered either historically stillborn or unconceived altogether.

And although all three are scattered along the traditional Left-Right political spectrum, the Jewish network at the intellectual and political center of each has exhibited consistently fascist characteristics both operationally and in its bigoted treatment of “out-group” religions, ethnicities, opponents, rivals, dissidents, and even neutral bystanders. Hence all three can be categorized, to varying degrees, as Judeofascist movements.

In modern history, perhaps the history of the world, no ethno-religious-political network has inspired more chaos and mass murder, yet been able to remain virtually anonymous and even unnamed. It's death toll is staggering, easily in the tens of millions, and the devastation it has wrought is incalculable: tens of millions more maimed, rendered homeless, disenfranchised and financially ruined; families separated and broken, never to be reunited; civil wars sparked and governments overthrown.

What, precisely, is Judeofascism and, given the earth-shattering consequences of its political manifestations, how has it been able to keep itself hidden largely below the radar of mass consciousness? Researchers are only beginning to scratch the surface of its nature, motives and modus operandi, but certain characteristics and patterns in its behavior, organization and composition are beginning to emerge:

--If diaspora Judaism has been described as a "nation within a nation," Judeofascism might be described as "a network within a nation within a nation."

--Judeofascism is a fascist political network comprised of an elite, self-selected religo-ethnic Jewish membership.

--Not all Jews are Judeofascists, but all Judeofascists are Jews, and Judeofascists have repeatedly leveraged organized Judaism on behalf of their agenda.

--Judeofascists believe that Jews are racially and religiously superior to non-Jews (gentiles) and that this supremacy gives them certain rights and privileges over gentiles either through historical fiat or in the eyes of God -- rights and privileges that should be extended and formally incorporated into the laws of man. These beliefs spring from a fixation on the supremacist components of the Jewish religious canon in general and the Talmud in particular, which expresses contempt and hatred for Christ and generally portrays gentiles as unclean, inferior and to be regarded with fear and loathing. It also springs from the living canon of Judeofascist experience, wherein the historically successful subjugation of gentiles by Judeofascist networks reinforces Judeofascist delusions of grandeur and supremacy.

--Judeofascism also draws its racialist beleifs from Jewish racial law, wherein only those born of a Jewish mother are worthy of "chosen" status, and from Israeli race law, which awards Jewish citizenship (and thus privilege) based upon Jewish bloodlines. Jewry as defined by Jewish or Israeli law then goes through a process of social natural selection wherein only the most shameless, clever, manipulative, greedy and ruthless of the Jews emerge into the ranks of the Judeofascists.

--Judeofascist racial supremacist beliefs find expression both in Judeofascist-constructed Israeli apartheid law (which formally extends special rights and privileges to its Jewish citizens over its non-Jewish citizens) and in Judeofascist attitudes towards and treatment of gentiles outside of Israel.

--Wherever they are located, Judeofascists regard the manipulation, subjugation, exploitation and general usury of gentiles as ethically, morally and spiritually justified due to the gentiles' inferior, non-chosen status. They regard their "rights" over gentiles as divinely, racially or historically ordained and self-evidently validated by the very ability of Judeofascists --through their collective guile--to successfully subjugate gentiles (and the inability or unwillingness of the gentiles to do anything about it). Judeofascists see Israel's ongoing ability to flout gentile international law without consequence as further evidence of Judeofascist supremacy.

--Judeofascism has no membership roles, political charter or political headquarters. However, as with any network of like-minded and subversive individuals that wishes to remain anonymous and unscrutinized, Judeofascism often operates within existing religious and secular institutions in the diaspora in order to co-opt their resources, credibility and power on its behalf. The Israeli government also regularly harbors its operatives and itself has been regularly co-opted on Judeofascism’s behalf.

--Usually, wherever there are Jews in large numbers, self-selected Judeofascists will coalesce into a unit or cell, which together comprise the Judeofascist network. In most cases, the network works on behalf of organized Judaism or Jewry, but at times it puts its own goals ahead of Jewry and is willing to sacrifice even masses of Jews to its agenda. Zionism's collaboration with Nazism during World War II in order to make the creation of Israel an international imperative is one such example of this strategic sacraficialism. A more contemporary but less consequential example (albeit one with a similar potential for violence) is the regular, angry, public denunciations by Neocons of their Jewish opponents in America as “self-hating Jews.”

--While there are technically no gentile Judeofascists, Judeofascism does receive financial, spiritual and material support and sustenance from useful idiot gentiles the world over. This comes A) through foreign aid and weaponry gifted to Israel by other governments, or through wars or military engagements fought by them on Israel's behalf (such as the Iraq war); B) from superstitious, bible-educated Christian Zionists who see "the Jews" as God's chosen people whose continued ingathering in Israel is a necessary component to eventual Rapture, Armageddon and the return of Jesus; and C) from more secular, "compassionate" and ostensibly intelligent Judeophile gentiles from both the liberal and conservative traditions who regard Jews as both perpetually embattled, and racially or socially gifted, and hence worthy of "protected status." The historical persecution of many Jews contributes to this line of thinking, even though anti-Semitism has usually been the consequence not of gentile bigotry, but rather of Judaism's arrogant, foolish and naive tolerance, protection and on-again, off-again collaboration with the Judeofascists in its midst.

This website approaches the Judeofascist problem from a pro-Israel perspective to the extent that it believes Jews have the right to self-association , self-determination and self-governance within a clearly demarcated Israel proper. However, it is anti-Zionist in that it believes Israel should extend all the rights and privileges enjoyed by Jews to its non-Jewish citizens (which is anathema to Zionism) if its wants continued aid and welfare from the West. (This web site believes all states the world over should be subject to such secular, pluralistic litmus tests). Alternatively, Israel can remain a Zionist state but be deprived of foreign aid and assistance and instead rely on contributions from sympathetic individuals the world over (both Jew and non-Jew alike) if it so chooses.

This website also believes that punishment for Judeofascist aggression is best dealt with by Jews themselves to the most reasonable and effectual extent possible. This means that those diaspora Jews who have not committed any technical crime, but who have demonstrated a pattern of intractable social subversiveness and active enmity and hostility towards gentile social cohesion on behalf of the Judeofascist or Israeli agenda that collectively amount to an attempt to fatally undermine or overthrow gentile self-governance and hence deprive gentiles of their own right to self-determination, should be stripped of their diaspora citizenship and deported to Israel without further punishment. Those Jews who are suspected of a technical crimes such as treason or sedition, or conspiring to overthrow or undermine the democratic process in gentile nations on behalf of the Judeofascist or Israeli agenda should first be tried and, if found guilty, punished by the gentile nations in which the crime was committed before loss of citizenship and deportation to Israel, similar to the way in which illegal alien criminals first serve time in domestic prisons prior to deportation. (Christian Zionists or Judeophiles attempting to overthrow gentile self-governance on behalf of Judeofascism either knowingly or through ignorance should be punished by the nations in which the crime was committed as appropriate.)

The continued existence of Israel is obviously a necessary component of this theoretical remedy to the Judeofascist problem, which has been a centuries-long plague upon humanity (particularly the West).

Clearly, for those interested in the continued existence, maintenance, prosperity and progress of Western civilization, ignoring the Judeofascist problem is no longer a viable option.

Chris Moore is publisher of and (a libertarian-populist website)

Tuesday, December 04, 2007

No Iran nukes, says US intelligence; Thankfully, America didn’t listen to “World War” braying Neocons

(By Chris Moore, -- The collective judgment of the United States’ best intelligence agencies has concluded that Iran long ago suspended its nuclear weapons program, which remains in mothballs to this day, according to recent analyses.

“A new assessment by American intelligence agencies made public Monday concludes that Iran halted its nuclear weapons program in 2003 and that the program remains on hold,” reports the International Herald Tribune.

The new National Intelligence Estimate, which represents the consensus view of all 16 American spy agencies, contradicts apocalyptic rhetoric that emanated from the White House following President Bush’s meeting with Neconservative guru and professional warmonger Norman Podhoretz, a Jewish nationalist Zionist who received the Guardian of Zion Award from Bar-Ilan University in May of 2007.

As reported in September by Politico:

‘President Bush and Karl Rove sat listening to Norman Podhoretz for roughly 45 minutes at the White House as the patriarch of neoconservatism argued that the United States should bomb Iran’s nuclear facilities. The meeting was not on the president’s public schedule. Rove was silent throughout, though he took notes. The president listened diligently, Podhoretz said as he recounted the conversation months later, but he “didn’t tip his hand.”’

Following that meeting, President Bush began publicly painting dark visions of the future unless Iran abandoned its nuclear weapons program -- a program that US intelligence now says hasn’t been functioning for years.

“The administration called new attention to the threat posed by Iran earlier this year when President George W. Bush suggested in October that a nuclear-armed Iran could lead to "World War III" and Vice President Dick Cheney promised "serious consequences" if the government in Tehran did not abandon its nuclear program,” reported the Herald Tribune. “Yet at the same time officials were airing these dire warnings, analysts at the Central Intelligence Agency were secretly concluding that Iran's nuclear weapons work halted years ago and that international pressure on the Islamic regime in Tehran was working.”’

Americans should be thankful that Jewish nationalist Zionist agitator Podhoretz, who has been steadily lobbying for the bombing of Iran and “World War IV” for months, didn’t get his wish.

Recall back in June, holding forth in the Zionist fever swamp Commentary magazine in an article titled ‘The Case for Bombing Iran,’ Podhoretz wrote the following:

“As the currently main center of the Islamofascist ideology against which we have been fighting since 9/11, and as (according to the State Department’s latest annual report on the subject) the main sponsor of the terrorism that is Islamofascism’s weapon of choice, Iran too is a front in World War IV. Moreover, its effort to build a nuclear arsenal makes it the potentially most dangerous one of all.”

In a follow up interview, Podhoretz compounded his pro-war rhetoric with a strange utterance that really said more about the usurious state of mind of he and his fellow Jewish nationalist Zionists and their latent hatred of Americans than it did about the supposed “Islamofascist” enemy he was urging war against:

“Well, if we were to bomb the Iranians as I hope and pray we will,” Podhoretz said, “we’ll unleash a wave of anti-Americanism all over the world that will make the anti-Americanism we’ve experienced so far look like a lovefest.”

Podhoretz later released a book titled “World War IV: The Long Struggle Against Islamofascism” in which he fantasized that America is merely in the early stages of an epic conflagration with Islam that will be fought for years to come.

Now take Norman Podhoretz and multiply him by thousands of pro-war, Jewish nationalist Zionist agitators, and what you get is the Israel lobby. Take the Israel lobby and combine it with an ignorant Christian Zionist like president Bush, and what you get is the Iraq war.

This is why these Jewish nationalist Zionist agitators should be deported to Israel: they are more loyal to that country than they are to America; they want to use the blood of American soldiers and the treasure of American taxpayers to secure a Jewish empire in the Middle East through world war; and like the Communist agitators who were deported to the Soviet Union during the Cold War, they are highly organized, disciplined, subversive and insidious.

If Podhoretz had had his way, America would have bombed Iran by now for its non-existent nuclear weapons program and probably be in the early stages of a world war that he and the Israel lobby helped to conjure.

Podhoretz is currently working as an advisor to Rudy Giuliani’s presidential campaign along with other well-known pro-war Jewish nationalist Zionists such as “Daniel Pipes, the director of the Middle East Forum, who has called for profiling Muslims at airports and scrutinizing American Muslims in law enforcement, the military and the diplomatic corps; and Michael Rubin, a scholar at the American Enterprise Institute who has written in favor of revoking the United States’ ban on assassination,” according to the New York Times.

Jewish nationalist Zionists of this ilk are riddled throughout the American establishment, in both parties, on both sides of the aisle, in in the halls of Congress as lobbyists, in the corporate boardrooms, and in US government agencies. Many of them are no less dedicated to sparking an American war against the entirety of Islam on behalf of a Jewish empire than is Norman Podhoretz.

Why even Michael Chertoff, absurdly a Secretary of Homeland Security for the US who has “de jure” Israeli citizenship and a record of funneling million of US taxpayer funds to US Jewish organizations for “security,” is among their ranks

They are warmongers, and they won’t stop until America is either neck deep in a bloody world war, or they have been deported to Israel, which is where their hearts truly lie anyway. Anyone who denies this is either simply ignorant of the history of Judeofascism (which spawned Bolshevism, Zionism and Neoconservatism), a Zionist collaborator sympathetic to their cause, or a selfish coward -- too scared, politically correct or financially-absorbed to fight back against the most potent threat to American democracy of the modern era.

I hope the FBI is reading, because if it didn’t know it already, that agency and the rest of the American intelligence and security communities have a fight on their hands -- and it’s not with Islamofascism.

Chris Moore is publisher of

Wednesday, November 28, 2007

Destined to remain in Sisyphean hell, Neocons are dragging the West into their ordeal

From Wikipedia: “In Greek mythology, Sisyphus was a king punished in the Tartarus by being cursed to roll a huge boulder up a hill, only to watch it roll down again, and repeat this throughout eternity.”

(By Chris Moore, -- The Neocons were warned by libertarians that the invasion of Iraq would be a disaster for both Israel and America. The insight wasn’t one of divine revelation or special powers of prognostication, but rather of common sense and the observation of nature and history.

Historically, occupying powers almost never succeed in subduing the occupied and, when success is attained, it is short term and comes at an ultimately intolerable cost to the alien power’s country or empire of origin.

In the past, empires most certainly have been able to plant seeds that grew into replicants of the empire that then took on lives of their own (ie British in N. America, Spanish in S. America) but that was before the Western civilization collective had settled those continents, and while the West was still working towards fidelity to its profession of God-endowed human rights for all, including the right of native peoples to self-governance.

While not perfect, libertarian factions in the West, in conjunction with modernity, are still working towards those ideals, but are being obstructed and drawn backwards by Neoconservative totalitarians, who, operationally, are a collaboration between Judeofascists and Christian Zionists.

The Judeofascists are warped by the history of Jewish persecution, which in most cases flows from Jews collectively surrendering their sovereignty to cynical, charlatan Judeofascist leaders who then set the Jewish people in opposition to rationalism out of a combination of religious delusion, narcissism, egoism and opportunism.

Similarly, the Christian Zionists, through subservience to their charlatan leader Bush, have surrendered their sovereignty to the Neocons, who, utilizing the same Pharisaic tradition as the Judeofascists, have pitted the US against the Islamic world out of a similar combination self-important arrogance and hubris.

Just as the Judeofascists have always led the Jews to ruin (and always will), Neoconservatism is leading the US to ruin and always will. Yet in the warped, deluded collective mind of the entity, it sees its mission as essential and, indeed winnable -- if only the US invades one more country or sheds a bit more blood.

Just as Sisyphus was supernaturally forced to continue the futile effort of rolling the boulder up the hill time and again in a Greek version of hell, so too are the Neocons spiritually motivated to persist in their futile effort to attain totalitarian control over the Middle East. They seem to believe that in doing so, they can perhaps leverage such a position into totalitarian control over humanity.

Such are the delusions of “faith” as interpreted by Neoconservatism, which in its Judeofascist/Christian Zionist incarnations means not only the suspension of disbelief, but the suspension of judgment itself.

Perhaps the hate-blinded way in which the two components of the Neoconservative collaboration each interpret their respective religions leads to a similarly acquiescent, malleable mindset amongst the followers, one conducive to the psychological suppression of critical thinking and scientific evidence, and hostile to the lessons of history unflattering to their respective tribes.

To be sure, Muslim totalitarians are caught in their own irrational, Sisyphean hell. But then, they don’t attempt to pass themselves off as modern and enlightened; they admit what they are and confess their intentions and bigotries. Fortunately, the innate intolerance and bigotry of Islamic totalitarianism leads, inevitably, to a self-negating Islamic schism.

No doubt, the Neocon Christian Zionist/Judeofascist axis will itself one day self-negate, but because it is not nearly as honest as Islamic totalitarianism, in the mean time it is far more dangerous.

Misery loves company, and so the Neoconservative movement is attempting to drag the world into its own version of hell by passing itself off as sophisticated, rational, modern and enlightened. And much of the West seems to be falling for this charade, proving that the Left-liberal establishment that now dominates the West, grown fat and soft on the coatails of rationalism, is intellectually unsuitable to the task of critical thinking necessary to defeat Neoconservatism.

In fact, due to years of worshipping at the altar of political-correctness, Left-liberalism’s own repressed masses may now be as malleable as the mass of Christian Zionist, Judeofascist, Islamic totalitarian intellectual peasantry.

No wonder the Neocons have been able to take the West down the Sisyphean road as far as they have. The Left-liberal “opposition“ is as morally and intellectually bankrupt as those it professes to oppose.

Chris Moore is publisher of

Wednesday, October 17, 2007

Bush: Iranian “knowledge” of how to make the Bomb enough to trigger World War 3

(By Chris Moore, -- 10/17/07 -- True to his pattern of using false claims to justify wars of agenda (recall Bush’s pernicious inferences that Saddam Hussein had ties to the 9/11 terrorist attacks used to deceive Americans into Iraq) the president is again playing deceptive word games in order to lower the threshold necessary to trigger his latest dark ambition: war with Iran.

"We have got a leader in Iran who has announced that he wants to destroy Israel," President Bush recently claimed of Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. "So I have told people that, if you are interested in avoiding World War III, it seems like you ought to be interested in preventing them from having the knowledge necessary to make a nuclear weapon."

What a clever mix of rhetorical propaganda, verbal gymnastics and outright lies -- all masked by a thin veneer of feigned idealism -- Bush and his neocon speechwriters are capable of employing in order to push America ever further down the road toward a Middle East conflagration.

Let’s start with Bush’s outright lie: "We have got a leader in Iran who has announced that he wants to destroy Israel."

What Bush is referring to is a 2005 speech in which Ahmadinejad is alleged to have said "Israel must be wiped off the map."

The problem is, even though the so-called quote was widely reported in the propaganda organs of Western media and to this day is parroted on television, in magazines and newspapers by neocon ideologues with a pro-war agenda, Ahmadinejad never actually said any such thing.

In an article entitled 'Wiped off the Map' – The Rumor of the Century, Farsi speaker Arash Norouzi painstakingly corrected the mistranslation of Ahmadinejad’s statement:

‘So what did Ahmadinejad actually say? To quote his exact words in Farsi:
"Imam ghoft een rezhim-e ishghalgar-e qods bayad az safheh-ye ruzgar mahv shavad." That passage will mean nothing to most people, but one word might ring a bell: rezhim-e. It is the word "regime," pronounced just like the English word with an extra "eh" sound at the end. Ahmadinejad did not refer to Israel the country or Israel the land mass, but the Israeli regime. This is a vastly significant distinction, as one cannot wipe a regime off the map. Ahmadinejad does not even refer to Israel by name, he instead uses the specific phrase "rezhim-e ishghalgar-e qods" (regime occupying Jerusalem).

‘So this raises the question...what exactly did he want "wiped from the map"? The answer is: nothing. That's because the word "map" was never used. The Persian word for map, "nagsheh" is not contained anywhere in his original Farsi quote, or, for that matter, anywhere in his entire speech. Nor was the western phrase "wipe out" ever said. Yet we are led to believe that Iran's president threatened to "wipe Israel off the map," despite never having uttered the words "map," "wipe out" or even "Israel.” ’…

‘The full quote translated directly to English: "The Imam said this regime occupying Jerusalem must vanish from the page of time." Word by word translation: Imam (Khomeini) ghoft (said) een (this) rezhim-e (regime) ishghalgar-e (occupying) qods (Jerusalem) bayad (must) az safheh-ye ruzgar (from page of time) mahv shavad (vanish from).’

How can President Bush, with elaborate worldwide intelligence institutions like the CIA and billions of dollars worth intelligence resources at his disposal, possibly be unaware of the correct translation of Ahmadinejad’s speech? Of course, he isn’t unaware. The president is fully aware of what Ahmadinejad really said, but the correct translation is inconsistent with his war agenda, and so, like his neocon brethren, he has deliberately chosen to put false word’s into Ahmadinejad’s mouth and broadcast the so-called quote to the world as authentic.

But isn’t the distinction between whether the Iranian president said he wants Israel “wiped off the map” or said the “regime occupying Jerusalem must vanish from the pages of time” mere semantics? Aren’t Ahmadinejad’s malicious intentions clear either way? Don’t both translations cry out for war?

To find out, let’s look back to another set of “menacing” quotes from a powerful leader who once was alleged to have threatened an entire rival civilization with destruction during a period of heightened mutual animosity.

In the 1980’s, President Ronald Reagan was quoted as saying the Soviet Union was an “evil empire,” and joking through an open microphone that “we begin bombing in five minutes.” Using the same clever rhetorical tricks as Bush and the neocons have used in the Ahmadinejad case, Soviet commissars and Communist sympathizers of the time argued that Reagan was threatening to wipe the Soviet Union off the map, even though he never made any such threat.

What Reagan was saying with his “evil empire” crack was that the Soviet regime (not the Russian people) was evil and thus unworthy of its position of authority over those suffering under its yoke. Ahmadinejad is saying something similar of Zionists.

Reagan was pilloried by Soviet agitprops as an aggressor for his statements, just as Ahmadinejad is being pilloried by neocon agitprops as an aggressor today. It seems the formerly Trotskyite neocons brought their nasty Bolshevik rhetorical tricks with them on their journey from Left to Right, and are now employing them to facilitate war with Iran.

But even the Soviets didn’t take the absurd next step of threatening the country that had elected their outspoken critic with “preemptive” destruction as a consequence of a deliberate mistranslation of his words, as Bush and the neocons have with Iran.


Now, let’s move on to the second part of Bush’s quote, where after (falsely) citing Ahmadinejad’s alleged threat to Israel, he says “if you are interested in avoiding World War III, it seems like you ought to be interested in preventing [the Iranians] from having the knowledge necessary to make a nuclear weapon."

By inference, Bush thus seems to be insinuating the possibility of the following chain of events: Iran has threatened Israel with destruction, Iran is in possession of “knowledge necessary to make a nuclear weapon," Israel or the US feel threatened by this conjunction, Israel or the US preemptively attack Iran, and the whole sequence of events ends up sparking World War 3.

Yet Iran already has the know-how to make a nuclear bomb, it just doesn’t have the technology and materials in place to utilize it, and according to both Ahmadinejad and Russian President Vladimir Putin, the man monitoring Iran’s nuclear power development program as part of their respective countries’ nuclear power partnership agreement, it doesn’t have the will to make a bomb, either.

"The Iranians are cooperating with Russian nuclear agencies and the main objectives are peaceful objectives," Putin recently said.

Irregardless of the facts, through his rhetorical conjecture, Bush has managed to lower the threshold of justification for an attack on Iran from active, aggressive pursuit of a nuclear bomb to the mere conjunction of its attainment of “the knowledge necessary to make a nuclear weapon" with the Iranian president’s threats to wipe Israel off the map -- threats he never made in the first place.

Thus, by Bush logic, if the US or Israel were to immediately attack Iran for possessing nuclear bomb making know-how and for Ahmadinejad’s non-threat, and consequently start World War 3 -- it would all be Iran’s fault.

And the neocons want Americans to believe that it’s the mullahs who are crazy?

Perhaps the “knowledge” that the Bush-Neocon Inquisition really fears, and from which it is hoping to distract its American subjects with an Armageddon-like bloodbath in the Middle East, is the knowledge that the Christian Zionist, Jewish nationalist Zionist and Big Government Conservative war profiteering coalition that makes up the Bush regime is no more representative of God-fearing Christians, Jews and Americans than the Soviet regime was representative of the people over which it ruthlessly ruled in Russia and the Eastern Bloc for so long.

Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad is no Ronald Reagan, but he does get one thing right: unjust regimes do indeed end up in the ash heap of history.

And the demise of the unjust regimes now ruling Tel Aviv and Washington will be no more lamented by the world than was the downfall of the Soviet regime by average Russian, Polish, Ukrainian and East German citizens who wanted nothing whatsoever to do with the Communist ruling elite’s murderous ways.

Average Americans want nothing to do with the crazed Neocons’ murderous ways either.

Chris Moore is publisher of

Wednesday, September 05, 2007

How the Israel lobby has played the Democrats for fools

(By Chris Moore, -- Iranian president Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, who recently bragged of being “a master in calculation and tabulation” whose “double proof” formulas showed the US wouldn’t wage war on Iran, may want to recheck his figures and compare them with Pat Buchanan’s assessment of the chances for such an attack.

On MSNBC on Monday, August 27, and in his follow up columns of August 28 and September 1, Pat Buchanan hit the nail on the head in identifying the powerful forces pushing for a US war against Iran, a war that Buchanan believes might be met (at least initially) with public approval.

As Buchanan noted on MSNBC: “I think if you took polls of the American people, they would put Iran right up at the top of America's enemies list.”

The recent US public paranoia over Iran, of course, isn’t based on reality, but rather on the latest neocon media campaign claiming anti-US machinations by Iran in Iraq, and portraying Iran’s ongoing nuclear power program as an imminent WMD “threat.” The propaganda has effectively allowed the Bush administration to scapegoat Iran for America’s self-inflicted Middle East wounds, and portray Iran as on the cusp of developing renegade nuclear weapons, which is a lie.

Buchanan continues: “So I think in the Democratic Party, of course, you've got the -- with due respect, you've got the Israeli Lobby and Israel, and you've got the hardline like [Sen. Joe] Lieberman, and you've got the Neoconservatives, and you've got a lot of evangelical Christians and others who think this is a real menace and you ought to hit them.”

Translated from PC-speak, what Buchanan is correctly conveying here is that the Democratic Party is in the grip of the Israel lobby not only in the form of groups like AIPAC and the office of “hardline Joe Lieberman,” but also in the form of other members of the Congressional Jewish nationalist caucus, which includes left liberal Jewish Zionists such as Rahm Emanuel, Chuck Schumer, Tom Lantos, Gary Ackerman, Howard Berman, Carl Levin, Steve Rothman and Barney Frank, among others.

On the other side of the aisle, Buchanan says, you’ve got a GOP hierarchy heavily influenced by “evangelical Christians” and providing it cover for war. What Buchanan really means is, not all evangelicals, but rather fanatical Christian Zionist dispensationalists, who make up only a percentage of evangelicals, but who are as committed to putting Israeli interests ahead of American interests as are the Jewish ethnic nationalists in the Democratic Party, but for different political, cultural and theological reasons.

In his follow up columns, Buchanan continues to drive all these points home: ‘Who is pushing for attacks on Iran? Israel and its lobby. Vice President Cheney. Sen. Joe Lieberman, who has been calling for air strikes on al-Quds camps for months. And a War Party facing lasting disgrace for having lied the country into an unnecessary war, and for having assured the American people it would be a "cakewalk."'

In its rush to ape the GOP, Buchanan says, the Democratic Congress has basically destroyed its own ratings on the war issue--and this just months after it was swept into power on a huge American backlash against Bush’s incompetent management of the Iraq war:

“Incredibly, only 3 percent of the nation gives Congress a positive rating on its handling of the war,” Buchanan notes.

Why didn’t the Democrats simply continue to ride the anti-war tidal wave all the way to another big victory over the wounded, discredited GOP? Again, due to the Jewish nationalist influence over party leadership:

“Last spring, Nancy Pelosi herself, after a call from the Israeli lobby, pulled an amendment that would have forced Bush to come to Congress for specific authorization before attacking Iran,” writes Buchanan. “Before the August recess, the Senate voted 97 to zero for a resolution sponsored by Joe Lieberman to censure Iran for complicity in the killing of U.S. soldiers in Iraq.”

As blogger Arthur Silber observed, this vote has put the Democrats on record as supporting “an amendment that accuses Iran of committing acts of war against the United States. Thus, if we were to attack Iran, we would purportedly only be acting defensively, and in response to what Iran has already done. This amendment, based entirely on unproven, propagandistic, intentionally warmongering allegations, was pushed in large part by Lieberman. Democrats (and progressive bloggers) may condemn the former Democrat all they wish: the fact remains that every Democratic Senator who voted on this measure voted for it. When the wider war begins, they will have no serious basis on which to object.”

So what were the Democrats supposed to do, ask party partisans, cede the national security issue to the GOP by opposing the Lieberman’s censure?

Well, going back to the amendment that could have been used to stop a Bush attack on Iran that was killed by Nancy Pelsoi at the behest of AIPAC, (and from a sane, war-opposed perspective inline with the overwhelming majority of educated Americans), the Democrats could have done the following:

1) Passed the amendment forcing Bush to come to Congress for permission to wage war against Iran.

2) If such a request came, put forward a full throttle campaign portraying it as yet more GOP warmongering destined to compound America’s problems in the Middle East, consistent with the GOP’s last wrongheaded and misleading initiative against Iraq. Such a campaign would have properly educated the public about the minimal threat posed by Iran.

3) Rejected the request with the overwhelming support from the American people, which would have forced Bush to back down and limp from office in disgrace, thus solidifying the anti-war voting block going into the 2008 elections.

But it must be remembered: the Democratic leadership isn’t interested in what’s best for America or in advancing the will of the American people; they’re only interested in satisfying their Zionist partners and the actualization of a left-liberal, big-government, quasi-totalitarian state. War with Iran helps accomplish both.

The Democratic leadership didn’t want to allow their members to force Bush to obtain permission to attack Iran because they knew it would put them on record if and when the request came from Bush. Such a vote could have been painfully divisive to the party (in the same way their vote last May granting Bush the $120 billion Iraq war spending package with no strings attached has proven a problem ever since). Likely to pass, any Iran war vote would have demonstrated to the American public once and for all that the majority of Democrats are as complicit in America’s Middle East disasters as are the Republicans.

And if the American public realized that the Democrats were equally culpable, how could the party win the presidency by pulling off yet another bait and switch scam running as a force for “change” as it did in the 2006 elections? Simply put, it couldn’t. And so Pelosi killed the amendment vote altogether.

Democratic strategists thought the no-vote policy would accomplish two goals at once: an official position of ambiguity on Iran that, cynically, would allow the party to maintain at least some support from its huge war-opposed rank and file; and at the same time, advance the Israel lobby’s goal of a war with Iran (which is clearly the Bush administration default policy) by giving Bush a free hand to bomb without a any possible hitches--which is what originally motivated AIPAC to demand the amendment’s removal.

Of course, the Democrats didn’t count on the treacherous Joe Lieberman’s censure resolution, which forced them take a position anyway. And as a result, it has been all downhill for them since.

As Pat Buchan noted, when it comes to war, the Democratic Congress “has lost the hawks, and the owls, and the doves. No one trusts its leadership on the war.”

Indeed, few trust the Democrats now on anything at all; a recent Gallup poll found 55% of Americans disapprove of the way Democrats in Congress are handling their overall job. And why should they be trusted? They have tried to manipulate and massage nearly everyone, and as a result, have ended up with the support of no one.

Their collapse is almost epic, but a Logic 101 student could have predicted such an outcome.

The 10 - 20% of Americans who are fanatical hawks are of course always going to back the GOP, which has proven time and again it will happily wage perpetual war against “Islamofascism” on behalf of Israel with no qualms whatsoever. But the owls (wise independents and realists) have been backing away from Washington’s Middle East adventures for months now, and or today in full retreat; and the doves have been loudly opposed to U.S. Middle East interventionism for years.

So why didn’t the Democrast simply side with the owls and the doves and ride the anti-war tidal wave to yet another overwhelming election victory in 2008? Because in their greedy grab for power, they tried to have it all ways: as the "strong on defense" (read war) party, and as the party of peace; as the pro-Israel party, but also the party of responsible Middle East policy.

The Democrats are also making terrible decisions because they are listening to the neocons’ secret weapon, the Democratic Jewish nationalist Zionists, who are so warped by their Israeli loyalties that they can no longer determine what is and is not in the Democratic Party’s best domestic political interests. And of course, the bitter Joe Lieberman, who still caucuses with the Democrats, is ever eager to repay in kind the party that rejected him in his 2006 primary and forced him to run as an independent.

What all this really boils down to is that the Democrats are a venal party of cynics, knaves, and fools, because they have no principles other than the quest for power, and because in that quest, they take counsel from groups that put Israeli interests ahead of American ones. The GOP can get away with such behavior because its large Judeo-Christian Zionist base has no problem subordinating what it views as an increasingly decadent and pagan America’s interests to those of the Judeo state of Israel. But with a large secular base opposed religious wars, such a strategy could never have succeed for the Democrats.

Of course, the delusional, scheming Democratic leadership apparently thought it could--so long as war with Iran was staved off until Hillary Clinton and a large Democratic Congressional majority were safely in office. But while successfully pounding away at the GOP on the issue of Iraq, the Democratic Party was back-stabbed by Joe Lieberman on behalf of the Right side of the Zionist-axis, which has now successfully moved the goalposts. The Democrats have been forced to buck up the battered and teetering GOP by siding with it on a contrived issue designed to demonize Iran in the form of a censure that was worded by Lieberman so as to be virtually fail proof .

Why were the Dems so easily played for fools? Perhaps they earnestly thought they could trust the historically Democrat-partisan Israel lobby to wait until 2009 for an Iranian war. But clearly, the Jewish Zionist coalition, which now includes many Republicans, wasn’t convinced that a future Congress, one that will likely be elected amidst an unpopular Iraq war, would be sufficiently hawkish to back a campaign against the Iranians--even one orchestrated by a president Hillary.

And so the U.S. is left once more with two parties at the helm in Washington DC hopelessly removed from the best interests of the people they purport to represent, and both yet again putting the country on the path to a destructive and unnecessary war.

Really, how much longer can a “democracy” with an unrepresented majority possibly continue to survive, let alone function?

Chris Moore is publisher of

Friday, July 13, 2007

The Jewish nationalist problem in the Democratic Party

(By Chris Moore, -- In yet another public relations stunt designed to maintain the illusion that the Democratic controlled Congress is serious about withdrawing US troops from Iraq, the House has passed, for the third time, “Iraq withdrawal legislation” that is virtually guaranteed to either be vetoed by President Bush or die in the Senate, as Congress’ first two ploys at creating the appearance of voter accountability already have.

Yet when the opportunity presented itself last May to attach troop-withdrawal deadlines that could have been made to stick by repeatedly inserting them into the Iraq war-spending package, Congressional Democrats and their GOP allies instead overwhelmingly voted President Bush $100 billion more in US taxpayer funds to escalate the war with no strings attached.

Democrats claimed it was because the president vetoed the first bill they sent containing withdrawal requirements. Yet when it mattered most and all they had to do was stick to their guns and keep sending the president bills with drawdown deadlines until he signed one in order to secure funding for the troops, they instead quickly caved in and granted Bush yet billions more in unregulated war money after one meager veto. Talk about “opposition” theatre.

Is that the behavior of a body that really wants to end the Iraq war?

Time and again a majority of Americans have told Washington that the Iraq war was a mistake and to start bringing the troops home; time and again numerous politicians from the two-party system (especially its Democrat wing) have nodded gravely and said to the voters: “You have been heard.” And time and again the voters have been betrayed by their “representatives.”

Are these beltway cads politically suicidal, or do they understand something about the nature of the two party monopoly in Washington and how elections and policy there are bought and paid for by certain special interests that the rest of us do not?

Writing for, Jerry Kroth thinks so.

‘Bloggers called them "traitor Democrats", and the descriptor is apropos. At the time of the [$100 billion war funding] vote, sixty-two percent of the American people favored a time-table for a withdrawal, but, more significantly, seventy percent of Democrats were so inclined. Voting against this burgeoning tide of anger betrayed the will of the people and party that put these Democrats in office.

‘Curiously, all of the traitor Democrats were huge career recipients of funds from the Israeli lobby. If we took ten Democratic apostates and compared them to ten Democrats who stood by the voters, pro-Israeli PAC contributions were ten times greater for the turncoats than those who stayed with their constituencies ($322,000 versus $34,000 on average)…

‘Three months before we invaded Iraq, a New York Times poll showed only 30 percent of the American people favored an all-out invasion, but the Israeli lobby (AIPAC) did, and it prevailed. Hardly a sprinkling of Americans favored the "surge", a meager fourteen percent, but AIPAC did, and the surge is surging as we speak. Fewer than thirty percent of Democrats supported that no-strings-budget, but AIPAC did, and the conclusion plays out another hackneyed chorus of ‘Whatever AIPAC wants, AIPAC gets’.’


Over the course of the Iraq war, most Americans have come to understand that the modern GOP has been co-opted by militant Zionists whose (failing) retail political brand in the US is now widely known as neoconservatism. While it is true that some neocons (like President Bush, Newt Gingrich, and Rudy Guliani) are Christian Zionists, the overwhelming majority of the movement’s intellectual and political movers and shakers are Jewish nationalist Zionists: Paul Wolfowitz, Douglas Feith, Richard Perle, William Kristol, Scooter Libby, Norman Podhoretz, Elliot Abrams, and Charles Krauthammer, to name just a few. All of these men were instrumental in lying America into the Iraq war.

What is not widely known is that a large percentage national Democratic Party politicians are also Jewish nationalist Zionists, and many of them are in party leadership positions.

For example, Rahm Emanuel, the chairman of the Democratic caucus and the fourth highest ranking Democrat in the House, was a patriotic volunteer during the first Gulf War in 1991 -- for Israel. As chair of the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee for the 2006 elections, Emanuel hand-picked pro-Iraq war candidates in toss-up races, thus ensuring that the “change” being sold to voters by the Democrats wouldn’t dramatically affect the war status quo.

While Emanuel was celebrated as a genius by the left-liberal cognoscenti following the Democrats’ victory, a post-election analysis showed that Emanuel’s strategy actually cost the Democrats seats they otherwise would have won. Because so many Americans were opposed to the war, Emanuel’s pro-war Democrat candidates discouraged voter turnout in many war-opposed districts across the country.

He was, however, able to help secure a record number of Jewish members (43) into Congress, an accomplishment that excited Doug Bloomfield, the former legislative director for AIPAC.

"It's unprecedented that there have been so many [Jews] in so many positions of leadership in both houses," Bloomfield chortled after the election, perhaps confident in the knowledge that polls show 82% of American Jews identify themselves as supporters of Israel, meaning the increase in Jewish members would make Congress even more pro-Israel than it already was.

These new Jewish members have joined established Democrat Congressional leaders with staunch Jewish nationalist credentials such as Chuck Schumer, Tom Lantos, Gary Ackerman, Joe Lieberman, the notorious war profiteer Diane Feinstein, and many others.

While most on this list have decidedly left-liberals views when it comes to domestic American social policy, nearly all of them suddenly become right-wing hawks when it comes to US foreign policy in the Middle East and wars against Muslims. For example, all of the Jewish nationalist Democrat leaders listed in the paragraph above voted in favor of the 2002 Iraq War Resolution authorizing the Iraq war.

In fact, given the crossover of their political positions, it is somewhat unclear why Jewish nationalist Democrats aren’t also labeled neocons like their Jewish nationalist cousins on the right. After all, many components of the neoconservative foreign policy agenda (blind loyalty to Israel, a muscular US presence in the Middle East, massive military budgets) and the neoconservative domestic agenda (lax border control, massive immigration and a powerful central government that extracts wealth from the provinces and redistributes it to Washington-connected cronies), are also embraced by Jewish nationalist Democrats, too.

Regardless, the crossover between parties when it comes to worldviews and their policy manifestations hasn’t been lost on everyone. In 2004, writing for the Wall Street Journal’s Opinion Journal, Julia Gorin noted:

‘As a new staple of mainstream American vocabulary, "neoconservative" warrants a reminder of the term's beginnings, before it became chic newspeak. It originally referred to a movement of largely Jewish liberals who gave leftism an honest and protracted effort, who dutifully reviled every Republican president through Eisenhower, who did their time in inner cities, and who gave peace and social engineering a chance, until the real-world consequences of their good will forced them to acknowledge that what they were doing wasn't working but in fact backfiring. At which point, these men (e.g., Norman Podhoretz, Irving Kristol) underwent a midlife epiphany and became conservative after the 1960s. Today the word applies to anyone who undergoes such a transformation, Jewish or not…With today's "post-9/11 omigod I think I may be Republican" Democrats, what we have in effect are neo-neoconservatives.’

Gorin is right: today’s Democrats do bear a close resemblance to neocons of the right. And not just the Jewish nationalist Democrats. Politicians like the Clintons, and even Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi all have distinctly neocon foreign policy leanings. Hillary voted for the Iraq War Resolution, Pelsoi stripped a provision from the controversial $100 billion Iraq war funding bill that would have made it harder for Bush to go to war against Iran, and Harry Reid recently admitted he wants to keep tens of thousands of US troops in Iraq, even after the mythical ‘withdrawal.”

The sub-text of Gorin’s article for The Wall Street Journal (which was a long-winded complaint about how the word “neocon” had become a coded anti-Semitic epithet) was not just that after 9/11, we’re all “Republican Democrats” now, but that after 9/11, all Americans should adopt the perspective of Zionist victims of Islamic terror as well; after all, aren’t we all united in our common “victimization” at the hands of those evil Muslims?

Gorin may be indulging in a bit wishful thinking about the average American’s willingness to embrace the militant victim mantle (as so many hair-trigger Zionists have) and about Americans’ susceptibility to being manipulated into adopting the siege mentality of Israelis, but judging from the Israel-like policies of the two-party political class in Washington since 9/11, she’s taken a perfect reading of the character of Republican-Democrats of today, who’s post 9/11 policies can best be described as…kosher genocide.


So why does the left, ostensibly the opposition to the right, put up with neocon Democrats?

In part, it’s because as Kroth’s analysis of the “traitor Democrats” shows, they don’t have a choice. Strings are being pulled for -- and huge money is being thrown behind -- traitor Democrat candidacies. (Insiders like Rahm Emanuel and his wealthy friends see to that.) So essentially, the neocon Democrat problem in the Democratic Party is part and parcel of the Jewish nationalist presence in the Democratic Party.

But the left-liberal intelligentsia refuses to touch the Jewish nationalist problem because confronting it would largely undermine the worldview that motivates the left-liberal base’s raison d’etat: namely that A.) Christianity is the apex of evil, (and we all know that Jews are victims of Christians, never the other way around); and B.) there is a nearly miraculous, transcendent quality to multiculturalism (and Jews are part of the multicultural tapestry).

With regard to the latter, to acknowledge that the left-liberal program to institutionalize multiculturalism may in fact cause more problems than it solves (insomuch as the successful group-conscious warmongering of Jewish-American nationalists demonstrates that not every ethnic group that is granted a foothold in America is willing to assimilate, and some of those that are not have their own distinctly anti-liberal agendas and are fully capable of imposing those agendas on the rest of us) is to strike a huge blow to a major left-liberal tenet.

The left-liberal conceit is that a permanent minority victim class is perpetually under siege from the Christian majority, and only they (left-liberals) can hold back the tide and save Enlightenment, tolerance, and the progressive American way. (Ironically, this echoes the Israeli conceit that it is a bulwark against Islamofascism). If it turns out that a large percentage of a crucial member of the progressive-minority-victim coalition (the Jews) isn’t so enlightened (or even tolerant) after all, that poses a huge problem to left-liberal theory and a crisis to its self-image, at which point serious contemplation would be in order.

Will the left-liberals continue to compromise their principles to maintain the partnership with wealthy and powerful Jewish nationalists for the money, the influence and the shock troops that Jewish nationalists bring to the left-liberal cause, or will they break with them on principle and risk their flight to the GOP?

It’s all too much for the left-liberal intelligentsia to contemplate, and so it averts its eyes and insists that the Christian-Right, capitalism, the oil industry and the military-industrial complex comprise the extent of the forces pushing the Iraq war from the wings.

However, the left-liberal fantasy can only be maintained for so long. Americans want to end the war and bring the troops home, but the left-liberals will never be able to do that because their Jewish nationalist caucus won’t let them. Eventually, Americans are going to realize this.

And when that happens, the left-liberal Democratic coalition is going fracture on the question of US troops in the Middle East -- whether they are fighting in Iraq, Iran, or both -- just as the GOP coalition has been fractured by the same issue.

At that point, one possibility is that the Republican-Democrat neocons will morph into a single party (in many ways they already have), leaving the field wide open for a coalition of authentic conservatives and authentic liberals.

Libertarianism, anyone?

Chris Moore is publisher of

Friday, June 01, 2007

The Bitter Education of Cindy Sheehan

(By Chris Moore, -- Two embittered letters of resignation marked famous anti-war mom and citizen-activist Cindy Sheehan’s departure from both the Democratic Party and full-time activism in opposition to the war in Iraq. The tone in each reflected Sheehan’s frustration, disillusionment and ultimate despair at the two-party system’s craven betrayal of the voting public on the issue of withdrawal from Iraq--a withdrawal an overwhelming majority of Americans now support.

The first, titled “An Open Letter to the Democratic Congress--Why I Am Leaving the Democratic Party” appeared on the Internet May 28 following the Democrats’ latest capitulation to the Bush administration on the issue of ongoing funding of the conflict. The Democrats had just sent Bush a $120 billion war spending bill without any troop drawdown requirements attached, essentially issuing the president yet another blank check to wage the war as he sees fit through the rest of the budget year.

(“Bush got his $100 billion, then magnanimously agreed to let Democrats keep the $20 billion in pork they stuffed into the bill – to soothe the pain of their sellout of the party base,” quipped Pat Buchanan following the vote.)

Sheehan’s second letter appeared on her blog at the left-liberal (and Democratic Party-backing) web site Daily Kos on Memorial Day, just over three years after her son Casey’s April, 2004 death while serving in the Iraq war.

Sheehan’s anger, perhaps even her stages of despair, are shared by more and more Americans as it becomes self-evident that the entire Washington establishment has been co-opted by a coterie of special interests hell-bent on pursuing their own narrow and selfish agendas at the expense of the American military, the American people, and ultimately at the expense of the American republic itself.

Sheehan singles out in particular the Democratic leadership, whose party was swept into office in 2006 on a wave of public outrage over the Iraq war, and who, in the wake of that victory, promised it had gotten the message from voters on the Iraq issue loud and clear. As Speaker-elect Nancy Pelosi said at the time: "The election of 2006 was a call to change — not merely to change the control of Congress, but for a new direction for our country. Nowhere were the American people more clear about the need for a new direction than in Iraq. The American people rejected an open-ended obligation to a war without end.”

Today it is clear to Sheehan that Pelosi and the Democrats have successfully carried out a massive public bait-and-switch scam. The goal all along was to exploit the public’s anger at Republicans over the Iraq war in order to attain a Congressional majority, without ever have had any real intention of changing the status-quo of the war’s conduct.

The Democrats apparently intend to give Bush and the Republicans enough rope over the next 18 months to finish the job of hanging themselves. But Sheehan correctly sees this as a sell-out of the thousands of US troops and Iraqis who will be unnecessarily killed as the Bush administration blunders on, financed by the Democratic congress.

“There is absolutely no sane or defensible reason for you to hand Bloody King George more money to condemn more of our brave, tired, and damaged soldiers and the people of Iraq to more death and carnage. You think giving him more money is politically expedient, but it is a moral abomination and every second the occupation of Iraq endures, you all have more blood on your hands,” Sheehan writes.

“Ms. Pelosi, Speaker of the House, said after George signed the new [war] funding authorization bill: ‘Now, I think the president's policy will begin to unravel.’ Begin to unravel? How many more of our children will have to be killed and how much more of Iraq will have to be demolished before you all think enough unraveling has occurred? How many more crimes will BushCo be allowed to commit while their poll numbers are crumbling before you all gain the political ‘courage’ to hold them accountable. If Iraq hasn't unraveled in Ms. Pelosi's mind, what will it take? With almost 700,000 Iraqis dead and four million refugees (which the US refuses to admit) how could it get worse? Well, it is getting worse and it can get much worse thanks to your complicity.”

“Being cynically pessimistic, it seems to me that this new vote to extend the war until the end of September, (and let's face it, on October 1st, you will give him more money after some more theatrics, which you think are fooling the anti-war faction of your party) will feed right into the presidential primary season and you believe that if you just hang on until then, the Democrats will be able to re-take the White House. Didn't you see how ‘well’ that worked for John Kerry in 2004 when he played the politics of careful fence sitting and pandering?”

As Sheehan and a growing number of Americans see it, this cold political calculus being employed by the Democrats is a premeditated sacrifice of a tangible, measurable quantity American blood--and puts that blood on the hands of the party that had heretofore been able to get away with laying the war at the feet of Republicans.

“So, Democratic Congress, with the current daily death toll of 3.72 troops per day, you have condemned 473 more to these early graves. 473 more lives wasted for your political greed: Thousands of broken hearts because of your cowardice and avarice.

“By the end of September, we will be about 80 troops short of another bloody milestone: 4000, and will hold nationwide candlelight vigils and you all will be busy passing legislation that will snuff the lights out of thousands more human beings.

“Congratulations Congress, you have bought yourself a few more months of an illegal and immoral bloodbath. And you know you mean to continue it indefinitely so ‘other presidents’ can solve the horrid problem BushCo forced our world into. It used to be George Bush's war. You could have ended it honorably. Now it is yours and you all will descend into calumnious history with BushCo.

“We gave you a chance, you betrayed us.”

But Sheehan’s angry condemnation didn’t end there. She also condemned left-liberal Democrat true-believers for their blind dogmatism and for enabling the continuation of the war by circulating the false notion that the Democratic Party would bring an end to the war if only the Republicans were driven from office.

“I have come to some heartbreaking conclusions this Memorial Day Morning. These are not spur of the moment reflections, but things I have been meditating on for about a year now. The conclusions that I have slowly and very reluctantly come to are very heartbreaking to me.

“The first conclusion is that I was the darling of the so-called left as long as I limited my protests to George Bush and the Republican Party. Of course, I was slandered and libeled by the right as a ‘tool’ of the Democratic Party. This label was to marginalize me and my message. How could a woman have an original thought, or be working outside of our ‘two-party’ system?

“However, when I started to hold the Democratic Party to the same standards that I held the Republican Party, support for my cause started to erode and the ‘left’ started labeling me with the same slurs that the right used. I guess no one paid attention to me when I said that the issue of peace and people dying for no reason is not a matter of ‘right or left’, but ‘right and wrong.’

Sheehan now recognizes an unpleasant truth about the machinations of the two-party system: it rallies average Americans under this banner or that with spirited, soaring rhetoric even as it plots to stab them in the back on behalf of the power brokers and special interests that really run the show.

The rank and file Democratic Party loyalists have been turned into automatons. They have been conditioned to fixate on the faults of Republicans and avert their eyes from the betrayals by the Democratic leadership for so long now, they can’t see that the Democrat leaders have morphed into soulless, power-mad traitors to the public trust themselves.

For both parties, governing is all about attaining control. Neither party really cares about the fate of the nation or its soldiers anymore. The fate of Party Leadership, the internationalist moneyed elite, and the ability to exercise raw dominion and intimidation at home and around the globe is all that matters to the venal political class and those who purchase its policies.

“I am deemed a radical because I believe that partisan politics should be left to the wayside when hundreds of thousands of people are dying for a war based on lies that is supported by Democrats and Republican alike,” Sheehan continues. “It amazes me that people who are sharp on the issues and can zero in like a laser beam on lies, misrepresentations, and political expediency when it comes to one party refuse to recognize it in their own party. Blind party loyalty is dangerous whatever side it occurs on. People of the world look on us Americans as jokes because we allow our political leaders so much murderous latitude and if we don’t find alternatives to this corrupt ‘two’ party system our Representative Republic will die and be replaced with what we are rapidly descending into with nary a check or balance: a fascist corporate wasteland. I am demonized because I don’t see party affiliation or nationality when I look at a person, I see that person’s heart. If someone looks, dresses, acts, talks and votes like a Republican, then why do they deserve support just because he/she calls him/herself a Democrat?”

In the end, Sheehan’s palpable anger, frustration and disappointment returns to the death of her son and a hope for her children still alive, a duality of emotion which seems to ground her in a kind of tragic resignation combined with a redemptive spirit of perseverance that together show her a clear-eyed way forward.

“The most devastating conclusion that I reached this morning, however, was that Casey did indeed die for nothing. His precious lifeblood drained out in a country far away from his family who loves him, killed by his own country which is beholden to and run by a war machine that even controls what we think. I have tried every since he died to make his sacrifice meaningful. Casey died for a country which cares more about who will be the next American Idol than how many people will be killed in the next few months while Democrats and Republicans play politics with human lives. It is so painful to me to know that I bought into this system for so many years and Casey paid the price for that allegiance. I failed my boy and that hurts the most.

“I am going to take whatever I have left and go home. I am going to go home and be a mother to my surviving children and try to regain some of what I have lost. I will try to maintain and nurture some very positive relationships that I have found in the journey that I was forced into when Casey died and try to repair some of the ones that have fallen apart since I began this single-minded crusade to try and change a paradigm that is now, I am afraid, carved in immovable, unbendable and rigidly mendacious marble.”

The journey that Cindy Sheehan has traveled over the last three years has been one fraught with betrayal, shameless exploitation and acts of despicable treachery committed by her own government and even some of those who claimed to be sympathetic to her cause.

Her son and thousands of others were emotionally blackmailed into the Iraq war by Bush and Congress on a post-9/11 pack of lies. But when he was killed, rather than crumple into a ball and limply succumb to the perfidy of her government leadership, she fed off of her emotion and became an inspired opponent of those who cynically sent him to his death.

She helped change the public atmosphere and consequently the public opinion about the Iraq war that led to the removal by angry voters of the Bush-compliant GOP Congress.

That anti-war atmosphere was subsequently tapped into by shrewd Democratic political operatives who rode it all the way to a Congressional majority for their party--only to promptly betrayed Sheehan and the rest of the country yet again by voting Bush hundreds of billions more in funding to continue the slaughter of both Americans and Iraqis.

It’s no wonder Sheehan is heartbroken. Unfortunately, her tragic experience is one that thousands more Americans will suffer through in the coming years as more and more U.S. soldiers arrive home in body bags.

How many body bags will it take before a majority of Americans recognize that the two-party system no longer represents their interests? Apparently we are going to find out.

Chris Moore is publisher of

Thursday, March 29, 2007

Now that the GOP is spent, is the Israel lobby shifting back toward the Democrats?

(By Chris Moore, -- Jewish nationalists across America and Israel are growing increasingly frustrated by the American people’s stubborn refusal to back any more Middle East wars on behalf of Israel and its territorial ambitions. Polls show that the vast majority of Americans are now opposed to the open-ended occupation of Iraq, and despite a steady drumbeat of demonization by Judeofascism’s allies in the media, only 10% of Americans view Iran as an imminent threat to the U.S.

Even the Bush administration, perhaps chastened by the Iraq fiasco, the GOP’s mid-term election “thumping,” or world polls showing Israel, Iran, the U.S. and North Korea as neck and neck in the running for “most negative influence in the world,” seems to have lost much of the revolutionary zeal behind its push for Middle Eastern “democracy.” And despite all it has done for them, it’s hearing from various Judeofascist factions about its lack of enthusiasm.

For example, none other than Vice President Cheney, who for years has sheltered Israeli-loyalists in the White House as they have painstakingly gone about propagating “evidence” that Israel’s enemies are also the primary threat to America, received a less-than-enthusiastic reception at the recent American Israel Public Affairs Committee (Aipac) conference, according to The Jewish Daily Forward:

“The vice president’s speech, which focused on the war in Iraq, received a lukewarm welcome from the Aipac delegates. The crowd gave Cheney only one standing ovation and only partial applause when he made the connection between the need to stay in Iraq and the ability of the United States to deal effectively with Iran’s nuclear threat. In sharp contrast, when Cheney dedicated his speech last year to the dangers posed by Iran and Palestinian terrorism, he drew 48 rounds of applause, including eight standing ovations.”

Apparently the Aipacers were expecting Cheney to announce that the U.S. would happily blunder into yet another strategic disaster on behalf of Israeli security by bombing Iran at the Israel lobby’s beck and call.

As if that narcissistic mindset wasn’t bad enough, the Forward (which according to Alexa falls into the categories of “Jewish” and “socialist,” but who’s editorial board is closer to Jewish-nationalist-socialist) later that week took Cheney to task via an angry editorial for being insufficiently deferential to Zionist sensitivities about accusations of warmongering.

Cheney had the bad taste to remind the Aipacers that America still has Israeli-related business in Iraq that, if left unfinished, poses a threat to the Jewish state. “It is simply not consistent,” Cheney said, “for anyone to demand aggressive action against the menace posed by the Iranian regime while, at the same time, acquiescing in a retreat from Iraq that would leave our worst enemies dramatically emboldened and Israel’s best friend, the United States, dangerously weakened.”

The Forward correctly interpreted this statement as an implicit linking of the Iraq war with Israeli security.

From the Forward editorial:

“And so Cheney came to Aipac, not to deliver the expected message of solidarity and good cheer, but to administer a spanking. Friends owe it to friends, he said. You must support us in Iraq, he said, or else.”

“No less alarming, Cheney was telling the Jewish community that the war in Iraq had been launched and fought in considerable measure for their benefit and Israel’s. That’s precisely the message that Israel’s worst enemies have been peddling for the past four years as America’s blood and treasure have been poured wastefully down the sinkhole of a misconceived and unwinnable war. It was a lie then, and it is a lie now. And now he seems to be casting Iran in the same light: as the Jews’ war.”

The problem is that it wasn’t a lie then, and it isn’t a lie now. Who would know better if the Iraq war is being fought largely at the behest of Zionism: The Vice President, who’s Jewish nationalist underlings helped manufactured the false intelligence used to justify the invasion, or the Forward editorial board (hardly an objective source to begin with)?

To rebut the Forward’s lie that the Iraq war had nothing to do with Israeli security, one need only review a few short paragraphs from the study “The Israel Lobby and US Foreign Policy” originally published in the London Review of Books by distinguished academics John J. Mearsheimer and Stephen M. Walt:

‘On August 16, 2002, eleven days before Vice President Cheney kicked off the campaign for war with a hard-line speech to the Veterans of Foreign Wars, the Washington Post reported that "Israel is urging U.S. officials not to delay a military strike against Iraq’s Saddam Hussein."140 By this point, according to Sharon, strategic coordination between Israel and the U.S. had reached "unprecedented dimensions," and Israeli intelligence officials had given Washington a variety of alarming reports about Iraq’s WMD programs.141 As one retired Israeli general later put it, "Israeli intelligence was a full partner to the picture presented by American and British intelligence regarding Iraq’s non- conventional capabilities."142

‘Israeli leaders were deeply distressed when President Bush decided to seek U.N. Security Council authorization for war in September, and even more worried when Saddam agreed to let U.N. inspectors back into Iraq, because these developments seemed to reduce the likelihood of war. Foreign Minister Shimon Peres told reporters in September 2002 that "the campaign against Saddam Hussein is a must. Inspections and inspectors are good for decent people, but dishonest people can overcome easily inspections and inspectors."143

‘At the same time, former Prime Minister Ehud Barak wrote a New York Times op-ed warning that "the greatest risk now lies in inaction."144 His predecessor, Benjamin Netanyahu, published a similar piece in the Wall Street Journal entitled "The Case for Toppling Saddam."145 Netanyahu declared, "Today nothing less than dismantling his regime will do," adding that "I believe I speak for the overwhelming majority of Israelis in supporting a pre-emptive strike against Saddam’s regime." Or as Ha’aretz reported in February 2003: "The [Israeli] military and political leadership yearns for war in Iraq."146

So why would the Forward mislead its own readers about the role played by Israel in the push behind the Iraq war? Because the truth is not conducive to the ongoing Jewish nationalist agenda of conscripting as many Americans as possible into the cause of Zionist expansionism under the guise of defending Western civilization and America from “terrorism” and “Islamic extremism.”

The supposedly shrewd, rough and tumble political operative Dick Cheney is belatedly learning a hard lesson about the true nature of his chosen allies in the “war on terror”: Judeofascists never say “Thank you for your efforts on Zionism’s behalf” or “We’re satisfied you’ve done enough.” With them, its always “What have you done for us lately?”

This epic ingratitude and ceaseless grasping was driven home by the Forward’s editorial harangue, which continued:

“Let’s be clear. Iran is a genuine threat, in a way that Saddam Hussein’s Iraq never was. It threatens not just Israel but all of America’s allies in the region — Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Jordan and even the Palestinian Authority. It is the top issue on Aipac’s agenda, yet Aipac has worked hard to present it, correctly, as a global problem, not just a Jewish or Israeli one. Cheney, in his desperation, appears willing to undo that hard work and put the Jewish community at the center of the debate. That’s wrong. Friends don’t let friends drive each other over a cliff.”

Dick Cheney’s insistence on securing Iraq before moving onto Iran is getting in the way of the Israel lobby’s “hard work” alright -- the hard work of deflecting attention away from the fact that Zionism was a major force behind the Iraq invasion, and of framing Iran “as a global problem, not just a Jewish or Israeli one” as a precursor to a U.S. bombing campaign on behalf of Israel. By the way, if Iran were truly a threat, why did Aipac need to work so hard to sell it “a global problem”? Maybe because of the CIA’s assessment that Iran is a good 10 years away from developing a nuclear bomb, and today probably even longer given that the Russians have withdrawn from assisting Iran’s nuclear program.

“Cheney, in his desperation” -- is spilling the beans.

Clearly, the Bush administration is no longer up to the task of enabling Zionist expansionism. Perhaps it time to bring in…the Democrats?

Neocon William Kristol, the editor of the “conservative” Weekly Standard, hinted at just such a Judeofascist strategy as far back as 2004

“If we have to make common cause with the more hawkish liberals and fight the conservatives, that is fine with me,” he told the New York Times. "I will take Bush over Kerry, but Kerry over [Pat] Buchanan....If you read the last few issues of The Weekly Standard, it has as much or more in common with the liberal hawks than with traditional conservatives."

And no doubt the Democrats will welcome back the Zionists (and all their “New York money people,” as General Wesley Clark correctly labeled them) with open arms. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi signaled as much when she killed a provision in an Iraq war funding bill that would have required congressional approval before launching a new war on Iran. She did this at the behest of -- you guessed it -- Aipac.

And so the treacherous Jewish nationalist strategizing again kicks into high gear: Americans are increasingly opposed to the GOP as a result of the Iraq invasion? Let’s morph into Iraq war opponents, snuggle back up to the Democrats who have ridden the anti-war wave to power (we know they will accept us because of our money, and the fact that Democrats, like the Republicans, have no moral or ethical principles other than greed and the quest for power) and then use our insider status and our agents like Rahm Emanuel, Chuck Schumer, Barney Frank and Tom Lantos to push for war with Iran. Aren’t we clever?

Yes, the Judeofascists are clever -- too clever by half. Or as one sage has put it: Often clever, but rarely wise.

It may take a population some time to figure out their game, but playing both sides against the middle sooner or later ends up enraging both sides, and the middle to boot.

The “new anti-Semitism” that is getting ever more play in the media is merely a byproduct of Judeofascism’s ceaseless scheming and the growing realization by more in the U.S. that both the Republicans and the Democrats are more interested in representing Israel, its lobby, and money-worshipping war profiteers than the American people.

Chris Moore is publisher of

Thursday, March 22, 2007

Why the Israel lobby and Judeofascism must be forsaken to restore liberalism -- and America

(By Chris Moore, -- March 08, 2007 -- Former CIA analysts Bill and Kathleen Christison’s latest exposé of the Israel lobby and the way it works is a fascinating journey through the Judeofascist organizational structure and its timeless ability to adapt, evolve and adjust to opposition and resistance, as well as exert a strong psychological control over Jews who don’t necessarily even subscribe to its insidious program of insinuation and subjugation.

Much of the Christison’s article challenges the intellectual acrobatics carried out by some on the left to maintain the fiction that US Mideast policy is dictated by U.S. imperial interests alone and that the Israel lobby holds little to no sway over its formulation. Even in the face of overwhelming evidence of the Israel lobby’s power (and evidence of its propensity to use that power to push U.S. Mideast interventionism on behalf of Israel) many of those liberals who should be the far-right lobby’s natural opponents are in such deep denial about its nature that they can’t begin to examine the subject objectively. This denial is largely the result of Judeofascism’s psychological control over the minds of many Jewish-American liberals, who are often Israel’s chief apologists on the left and thus end up running interference for its powerful lobby in the U.S. as well.

Opposition to Judeofascsism from the left and from liberals is an important subject because so much of the right has already been co-opted by the Judeofascist movement. “Christian” Zionists, large segments of big business and big oil, the military-industrial complex, and a large portion of the GOP (and more than a few Democrats) are already basically in the Judeofascist camp.

These groups’ tacit agreement with Israel and its lobby is as follows: You spearhead the fight to take America into World War III against Islam under the guise of the “war on terror” and “defending our ally Israel,” and we’ll push (and pay, through campaign contributions) for congressional acquiescence. Together, we’ll all get disgustingly rich in the processes. (Never mind that it will be at the expense of American taxpayers and the lives of countless US soldiers and innocent Muslims, who are expendable to the moneymaking ambitions of the Judeofascists and other ruthless factions of the U.S. elite).

The Christison’s list the arguments of well-known and influential left-leaning writers and academics Noam Chomsky, Norman Finkelstein and Stephen Zunes as epitomizing opposition from the left to the notion that the Israeli lobby tail is wagging the U.S. government dog. None of these writers are uncritical of Israel, but they are more inclined to blame the U.S. government for the actions of the Israelis than the Israelis themselves. On top of that, they cloud the fact that the Israeli government and much of the country’s private industry is deeply intertwined with the U.S. “political-corporate-military complex.”

“These critics do not dispute the existence of a lobby, but they minimize its importance, claiming that rather than leading the U.S. into policies and foreign adventures that stand against true U.S. national interests, as [Israel lobby critics] Mearsheimer and Walt assert, the U.S. is actually the controlling power in the relationship with Israel and carries out a consistent policy, using Israel as its agent where possible,” the Christison’s write.

“The tragedy of the present situation is that it has become impossible to separate Israeli from alleged U.S. interests ­ -- that is, not what should be real U.S. national interests, but the selfish and self-defined ‘national interests’ of the political-corporate-military complex that dominates the Bush administration, Congress, and both major political parties. The specific groups that now dominate the U.S. government are the globalized arms, energy, and financial industries, and the entire military establishments, of the U.S. and of Israel ­-- groups that have quite literally hijacked the government and stripped it of most vestiges of democracy.”

By denying the reality of the Israel lobby’s indispensability to the neo-fascist power structure and pointing the blame for America’s growing corporate-government fascism in other directions, liberal defenders of Israel are dragging red-hearings across the American people’s pursuit of the truth.

But why would the likes of Chomsky, Finkelstein and Zunes want to minimize the Israel lobby’s role in formulating the U.S.’s belligerent and hegemonic Mideast policy? Is it because they are all Jewish, and thus (given their arguments) perhaps Zionists shills? Or is there some other component at play?... (click here for full article)

Wednesday, February 28, 2007

Judeofascist authoritarians and the ‘War on Terror’ laws

(By Chris Moore, -- Blogger Xymphora recently noted the connection between Zionism and the post-9/11 ‘War on Terror' legislation passed in much of the West by big government authoritarians of both the Left and Right. He says Zionists and authoritarians want to use homeland security laws to maintain Americans citizens and others in an Orwellian state of paranoia and agitation in order to control them with fear, and to normalize Israel’s oppressive and totalitarian treatment of the Palestinian people as a rational reaction to their “terrorism.”

Of the ongoing battle over whether to maintain current 'War on Terror' restrictions on civil liberties, he writes:

“The Zionists and the jack-booted thugs…of the security establishment [have] relied on fear to attempt to keep the legislation. Terrorist hell is supposed to break loose once there is any glimmer of freedom from oppression.

“The ‘war on terror’ was created by Netanyahu and the Israeli right for three reasons: 1. It was supposed to replace the idea that Israel was the ally of the United States in the Middle East in the battle against the Soviets, by the idea that Israel was the ally of the United States in the Middle East in the battle against fundamentalist Islam (the shift was needed when the Soviet Union no longer existed). 2. It was intended to create the idea that Israel’s struggle against the justified reaction by the Palestinians to Israeli war crimes was the same struggle faced by the United States, and the world. 3. It has been extended to include the entire gamut of propaganda weapons which we know of as Islamophobia, intended to create a general fear of Islam which is used to make possible various Zionist outrages.

“One of the Israeli spies caught while cheering at the collapse of the World Trade center put it clearly: ‘We are Israeli. We are not your problem. Your problems are our problems. The Palestinians are the problem.’ Netanyahu himself, on being asked about what the September 11 attacks would mean for US-Israeli relations, said: ‘It's very good. Well, it's not good, but it will generate immediate sympathy.’”

Xymphora is inclined to cast much of the blame for the authoritarian legislation on behind-the-scenes lobbying by the “Jewish Billionaires Club” (which I read as his metaphor for the wealthiest of Jewish authoritarians and their network of pro-Zionist organizations emanating from Israel and through much of the Caucasian world).

He is probably correct in his assessment that Jewish nationalist Zionists are sympathetic to authoritarianism (so long as they hold the reins of power) and deserve much blame for draconian, post-9/11 legislation. But they most certainly weren’t and aren’t acting alone. Jews make up a tiny minority of Westerners -- under 5% of the United States and well under that in all of (for lack of a better term) Caucasland (which comprises Caucasian-dominated Europe plus the five nations Xymphora names as impacted by Zionist-engineered authoritarian legislation (Canada, the U.S., Australia, New Zealand and Britain). Wealthy Jewish Zionist fanatics sympathetic to authoritarianism make up an even smaller percentage of the overall population of Caucasland still.

Part of the point of Xymphora’s article is that the “horrific Orwellian legislation” engineered by the Zionists and designed to oppress Muslims must be endured by everyone (as a result of commendable equal protection clauses written into the laws of nearly all countries of Caucasland). He does not indicate one way or another, but I believe that the legislation is directed not only at Muslims, but at every other group that the Zionists see as a potential threat both today and in the future, including, theoretically, Christians. (Remember, the authoritarian laws of the ‘War on Terror’ are similar to -- and perhaps even patterned on -- those imposed by the disproportionately Jewish Bolsheviks on the people of the Soviet Union used to strangulate and ultimately annihilate Russian Christians and other anti-Communist dissidents.)

This is ironic given that a large percentage of the Christian Right is also Christian Zionist. The Christian Zionists know the history of Jewish Bolshevism and its murderous hatred of Christianity, and that is why I identify the premeditated Jewish nationalist/Christian Zionist alliance as Judeofascism instead of Christofascism. There is nothing “Christian” about Judeofascism whatsoever, except in the sense that it includes partners from a group that identifies itself as “Christian” and subscribes to the theory that Western civilization is exclusively a construct of the Judeo-Christian tradition (as opposed to a construct of Greco-Roman/Christian/Enlightenment tradition). But nothing in blood-drenched Christian Zionist behavior is consistent with the teachings of Christ or any of the words that actually came out of his mouth (including its love of corrupt Jewish leaders).

On the other hand, given that Bolshevism, Zionism and Neoconservatism are all disproportionately Jewish movements, and that their Manichean, cliquish, warmongering, “good vs. evil," "with us or against us” world view is consistent with certain racialist interpretations of Jewish doctrine that fixate on the concept of “choseness,” obsess over dividing Jews from gentiles, and emphasize the Talmud (itself filled with the most bigoted and vituperative anti-gentile rhetoric), there is something distinctly Jewish about Judeofascsim. In fact, pushing choseness, obsessively segregating Jews from gentiles and fixating on the Talmud are all, unfortunately, commonplace in today’s organized Jewish mainstream.

As Xymphora’s assessment points up, the problems start, then, when the racialist-oriented organized Jewish mainstream (as opposed to the silent majority of disorganized Jewry) takes hold of the levers of power and starts imposing its divisive, polarizing world view on Western politicians as a template for governance. The problem snowballs when philo-Semitic “Christian” Zionists and the greedy military-industrial complex join with organized Jewry to undertake a clash of civilization against Muslims, resulting in the latest incarnation of Judeofascism-on-the-move. And the problem turns into an avalanche when corrupt and unprincipled Democrats and Republicans are bought off by wealthy Jewish nationalist/Christian Zionist Judeofascists with campaign contributions to undertake a ‘War on Terror’ using Judeofascist methods, tactics and principles in pursuit of a Judeofascist agenda.

Unfortunately, most self proclaimed conservatives or liberals are willing to both deny Judeofascism’s existence and look the other way as it carries out its murderous campaign. They say that Islamic fanaticism merits a strong response.

Yes, Islamic totalitarianism exists; yes, Judeofascism exists. Both are hopelessly inimical to liberty, authentic conservatism and authentic liberalism. Yet the two-party extremists, all of whom say they want to fight Islamic totalitarianism to one degree or another, are willing to surrender to the Judeofascist agenda to do so. They have made their deal with the devil.

So now that we know where Judeofascist extremism leads (to the Gulag) how are these sell-outs who are collaborating with the Judeofascists from within our very borders less of a threat than the Islamic totalitarians?

Hillary Clinton? Barak Obama? Rudy Giuliani? John McCain? All sell-outs. All Judeofascist appeasers. All phony “liberals” or faux “conservatives.”

As the saying goes, something’s gotta give. America and the world have a minor Islamic totalitarian problem and a major Judeofascist one, and the corrupt, two-party monopoly is never going to solve either.

Chris Moore is publisher of