The Jew-Firster Cry for War on Iran
Netanyahu Addresses AIPAC 2012 (3.5.12)
Excerpts from Full Text of Netanyahu Speech to AIPAC 2012:
I also want to recognize Yossi Peled, who is here tonight. Yossi, would you please stand up.
Yossi was born in Belgium. His parents hid him with a Christian family during the Holocaust, World War II. His father and many other members of his family were murdered at Auschwitz.
His mother survived the Holocaust, returned to reclaim Yossi, and brought him to Israel. He became one of Israel’s bravest and greatest generals. And today, he serves as a minister in my cabinet.
Yossi’s life is the story of the Jewish people – the story of a powerless and stateless people who became a strong and proud nation, able to defend itself.
And ladies and gentlemen, Israel must always reserve the right to defend itself.
Tonight, I’d like to talk to you about a subject that no one has been talking about recently…: Iran.
Every day, I open the newspapers and read about these redlines and these timelines. I read about what Israel has supposedly decided to do, or what Israel might do.
Well, I’m not going to talk to you about what Israel will do or will not do, I never talk about that. But I do want to talk to you about the dangers of a nuclear-armed Iran. I want to explain why Iran must never be allowed to develop nuclear weapons.
President Obama has reiterated his commitment to prevent that from happening. He stated clearly that all options are on the table, and that American policy is not containment.
Well, Israel has exactly the same policy — We are determined to prevent Iran from developing nuclear weapons; we leave all options on the table; and containment is definitely not an option.
The Jewish state will not allow those who seek our destruction to possess the means to achieve that goal.
A nuclear armed Iran must be stopped.
Iran’s proxies have dispatched hundreds of suicide bombers, planted thousands of roadside bombs, and they fired over twenty thousand missiles at civilians.
Through terror from the skies and terror on the ground, Iran is responsible for the murder of hundreds, if not thousands, of Americans.
In 1983, Iran’s proxy Hezbollah blew up the Marine barracks in Lebanon, killing 240 US Marines. In the last decade, it’s been responsible for murdering and maiming American soldiers in Afghanistan and in Iraq.
Just a few months ago, it tried to assassinate the Saudi Ambassador to the US in a restaurant just a few blocks from here. The assassins didn’t care that several Senators and members of Congress would have been murdered in the process.
Now this is real chutzpa, Iran accuses the American government of orchestrating 9/11, and that’s as brazen as denying the Holocaust, and they do…
Iran calls for Israel’s destruction, and they work for its destruction – each day, every day.
This is how Iran behaves today, without nuclear weapons. Think of how they will behave tomorrow, with nuclear weapons. Iran will be even more reckless and a lot more dangerous.
There’s been plenty of talk recently about the costs of stopping Iran. I think it’s time we started talking about the costs of not stopping Iran.
A nuclear-armed Iran would dramatically increase terrorism by giving terrorists a nuclear umbrella. Let me try to explain what that means, a nuclear umbrella.
It means that Iran’s terror proxies like Hezbollah, Hamas will be emboldened to attack the United States, Israel, and other countries because they will be backed by a power that has atomic weapons. So the terrorism could grow tenfold.
I want you to think about what it would mean to have nuclear weapons in the hands of those who lead millions of radicals who chants of “Death to America” and “Death to Israel.”
When you think about that m you’ll reach a simple conclusion: for the sake of our prosperity, for the sake of our security, for the sake of our children, Iran must not be allowed to acquire nuclear weapons!
Of course, the best outcome would be if Iran decided to abandon its nuclear weapons program peacefully. No one would be happier than me and the people of Israel if Iran dismantled its program.
But so far, that hasn’t happened. For fifteen years, I’ve been warning that a nuclear-armed Iran is a grave danger to my country and to the peace and security of the entire world.
Some commentators would have you believe that stopping Iran from getting the bomb is more dangerous than letting Iran have the bomb. They say that a military confrontation with Iran would undermine the efforts already underway; that it would be ineffective; and that it would provoke an even more vindictive response by Iran.
I’ve heard these arguments before. In fact, I’ve read them before — In my desk, I have copies of an exchange of letters between the World Jewish Congress and the United States War Department.
Here are the letters:
The year was 1944. The World Jewish Congress implored the American government to bomb Auschwitz. The reply came five days later. I want to read it to you.
Such an operation could be executed only by diverting considerable air support essential to the success of our forces elsewhere…
and in any case, it would be of such doubtful efficacy that it would not warrant the use of our resources…
And, my friends, here’s the most remarkable sentence of all, and I quote:
Such an effort might provoke even more vindictive action by the Germans.
Think about that – “even more vindictive action” — than the Holocaust.
Barack Obama's AIPAC 2012 speech
Excerpts from Transcript of Obama’s AIPAC speech:
[Former Israeli President] Shimon [Peres] once described the story of the Jewish people by saying it proved that, “slings, arrows and gas chambers can annihilate man, but cannot destroy human values, dignity, and freedom.”
Four years ago, I stood before you and said that, “Israel’s security is sacrosanct. It is non-negotiable.” That belief has guided my actions as president. The fact is my administration’s commitment to Israel’s security has been unprecedented. Our military and intelligence cooperation has never been closer. Our joint exercises and training have never been more robust. Despite a tough budget environment, our security assistance has increased every single year. We are investing in new capabilities. We’re providing Israel with more advanced technology - the types of products and systems that only go to our closest friends and allies. And make no mistake: We will do what it takes to preserve Israel’s qualitative military edge - because Israel must always have the ability to defend itself, by itself, against any threat.
The reality that Israel faces - from shifting demographics, to emerging technologies, to an extremely difficult international environment - demands a resolution of this issue. And I believe that peace with the Palestinians is consistent with Israel’s founding values - because of our shared belief in self-determination, and because Israel’s place as a Jewish and democratic state must be protected.
And just as we’ve been there with our security assistance, we’ve been there through our diplomacy. When the Goldstone report unfairly singled out Israel for criticism, we challenged it. When Israel was isolated in the aftermath of the flotilla incident, we supported them. When the Durban conference was commemorated, we boycotted it, and we will always reject the notion that Zionism is racism.
When one-sided resolutions are brought up at the Human Rights Council, we oppose them. When Israeli diplomats feared for their lives in Cairo, we intervened to save them. When there are efforts to boycott or divest from Israel, we will stand against them. And whenever an effort is made to delegitimize the state of Israel, my administration has opposed them. So there should not be a shred of doubt by now - when the chips are down, I have Israel’s back.
Which is why, if during this political season you hear some questions regarding my administration’s support for Israel, remember that it’s not backed up by the facts. And remember that the U.S.-Israel relationship is simply too important to be distorted by partisan politics. America’s national security is too important. Israel’s security is too important.
I said that America’s commitment to Israel’s security is unshakeable, our friendship with Israel is enduring and that Israel must be recognized. No American president has made such a clear statement about our support for Israel at the United Nations at such a difficult time. People usually give those speeches before audiences like this one - not before the General Assembly.
And I must say, there was not a lot of applause. But it was the right thing to do. And as a result, today there is no doubt - anywhere in the world - that the United States will insist upon Israel’s security and legitimacy. That will be true as we continue our efforts to pursue - in the pursuit of peace. And that will be true when it comes to the issue that is such a focus for all of us today: Iran’s nuclear program - a threat that has the potential to bring together the worst rhetoric about Israel’s destruction with the world’s most dangerous weapons.
Let’s begin with a basic truth that you all understand: No Israeli government can tolerate a nuclear weapon in the hands of a regime that denies the Holocaust, threatens to wipe Israel off the map and sponsors terrorist groups committed to Israel’s destruction. And so I understand the profound historical obligation that weighs on the shoulders of Bibi Netanyahu and Ehud Barak and all of Israel’s leaders.
A nuclear-armed Iran is completely counter to Israel’s security interests. But it is also counter to the national security interests of the United States.
Indeed, the entire world has an interest in preventing Iran from acquiring a nuclear weapon. A nuclear-armed Iran would thoroughly undermine the nonproliferation regime that we’ve done so much to build.
I have said that when it comes to preventing Iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon, I will take no options off the table, and I mean what I say. That includes all elements of American power: a political effort aimed at isolating Iran, a diplomatic effort to sustain our coalition and ensure that the Iranian program is monitored, an economic effort that imposes crippling sanctions and, yes, a military effort to be prepared for any contingency.
Iran’s leaders should understand that I do not have a policy of containment; I have a policy to prevent Iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon. And as I have made clear time and again during the course of my presidency, I will not hesitate to use force when it is necessary to defend the United States and its interests.
These are challenging times. But we’ve been through challenging times before, and the United States and Israel have come through them together. Because of our cooperation, citizens in both our countries have benefited from the bonds that bring us together. I’m proud to be one of those people. In the past, I’ve shared in this forum just why those bonds are so personal for me: the stories of a great uncle who helped liberate Buchenwald, to my memories of returning there with Elie Wiesel; from sharing books with President Peres to sharing seders with my young staff in a tradition that started on the campaign trail and continues in the White House; from the countless friends I know in this room to the concept of tikkun olam that has enriched and guided my life.- - -
So here we have the commander in chief of USG's armed forces and his Israeli counterpart, speaking to the same group of people, telling them what they want to hear. What is said is so similar that it could have come from the same speech writer. For all the self-interested jewish bluster about Barack Obama being bad for Israel, or being at odds with Benjamin Netanyahu, it is clear that they agree on these essential points:
- An attack on Iran is coming.
- They will order this attack first and foremost to serve what they believe are the best interests of jews.
- For justification they cite a one-sided, jewish version of history, and specifically the holocaust narrative which paints Europeans as victimizers of jews.
On the last point the Israeli goes farther and blames Americans as well.
The jewish organization Obama and Netanyahu addressed is more powerful than the US Congress. Congress votes the way AIPAC tells them to. As the current US president has made clear, concern for jewish interests extends to and dominates both major political parties and the executive branch as well.
Labels: aipac, barack obama, benjamin netanyahu, iran, jewish influence
posted by Tanstaafl at 3/12/2012 08:41:00 AM
35 Comments:
In cultural and religious terms only (leaving aside race, genes, ethnicity and common family descent from the patriarchs in the family narratives of the Bible), what is, or what has been, the basis of Judaism? It's the story of how the people who would be the Jews were enslaved in Egypt, they were oppressed, they were set to make bricks without straw, but Moses led them, and their God sent these plagues upon the Egyptians, and the God of the Jews led His people out of Egypt (and after a long wander in the desert) to the land that He promised them. This is the story of Jews being victimized by a great people of the ancient world, and of the redemption of the Jews and something very much like revenge on their oppressors, by the act of God. That's remembered every year at Pesach, and if a Jewish child asks "why should I remain a Jew, why should I stay committed?" that's the reason: because God led us out of slavery in the land of Egypt. This is a very powerful story that's kept the Jews together for thousands of years, and has been accepted as true also in Christianity, and has been the basis of some Blacks seeing a comparison between themselves as slaves and Jews as slaves.
It's completely bogus. Not just all the obviously supernatural stuff. Not just the "he said, she said" stuff involving small numbers of people with no witness or evidence beyond the religious text. Not just the whacky behaviour of the Nile, which we know didn't happen because now we can use science to read the evidence of the past. The whole thing. The Jews weren't slaves in Egypt or anything else in Egypt. They weren't there at all. (Till much later when they entered Egypt as merchants that the Egyptians trusted no more than they trusted the clever Greeks.) The oppression, and the specific details on the unreasonable work orders the future Jews were given – it's nothing but a tissue of invented grievances by people who were never there. Pharaoh knew nothing of any masses of Jews living in Egypt. Neither did anyone else. And the Egyptians liked to carve their records in stone.
We've been living a Jewish fantasy of invented oppression, invented grievances, invented attempted genocide against the Jews (with Pharaoh sending his army to wipe out the fleeing Jews), and vindication and something a lot like revenge on the powerful non-Jews, for thousands of years now. It's embedded in Western culture, and it's not going away as long as Christians continue to read the Bible and believe it (and as long as Jews continue to tell stories).
I think we have to accept that the Jews have an awesome power of creating myths in which they are the holy and innocent and righteous victims of oppressive and genocidal non-Jews, and God (the only real God) is on their side, and they ultimately survive, and something a lot like divinely ordered vengeance falls on their enemies.
These stories don't have to fade. They can be sustained for thousands of years at a stretch, and imposed as an all-decisive narrative and interpretative framework on people who have nothing to do with that story (even if it was true), who live in some other part of the world.
This myth-creating and myth-sustaining power (combined with the harshest demystification and demonization of the narratives and gods of others, such as the ancient Egyptians) works like widespread and lasting mind-control. Everybody is reacting to highly emotive memories of collectively self-serving and self-flattering Jewish stories. For Jews that's great, because it consolidates them socially and it makes them more effective, more convincing story-tellers. For others it can be catastrophic.
People are trying to make this power of Jewish myth-building catastrophic for Iran, right now.
More to the point, the jews and their influence have been catastrophic for European-kind, both in Europe and abroad. Today the jews lobby to have the American military - in which Whites are overrepresented - do the killing and dying for jewish interests. It will be bad for Whites, just as the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan have.
The effect if not the intent of jews crying so loudly and frequently about what a catastrophe their involvement with Whites has been (the jewish version of history) is to preempt, to preclude, to drown out even the thoughts Whites might have about how catastrophic our involvement with the jews has been.
Yes.
I was writing a follow-up comment on that, but I got bogged down. It was getting too wordy.
I think the Jewish stories have so much power over us not because we know so much about them but so little. Most people (Christians that is) who have built their weltanschauung on these stories know only an idealized version of a selection from them that was taught to them in their childhood, (Sunday School,children's Bible etc.) and they would be shocked if they read these stories in their entirety and with a critical mind.The amount of immorality, cruelty and dabauchery is staggering. Read it and you are instantly cured from it.
I think what's referred to as "slavery" in Egypt was more a case of being under the imperial rule of the ancient Egyptians and not having independent, self-rule. Rather than every single Jew being manacled and engaged in physical labor and servitude or something.
In ancient Egypt, Jews, like other groups including the Egyptians themselves, likely served in various occupations from slave labor to soldiering and administrative staff serving the pharaoh and his state.
The lack of either having independence, autonomy, and self-rule or being able to occupy the upper echelon of the imperial state to wield it to serve Jewish interests, is probably what's meant by "slavery". You can use "slavery" to describe such a situation of course, but it is kind of misleading because most people have in mind shackles, physical degradation, extreme victimization that singles out a particular race or class, etc. rather than the lack of self-rule characterizing most groups under imperial rule.
Wow Daybreaker, you put my thoughts in words.
This is pretty much my experience with jewsand their stories.
If the Bible Hebrew's had ever been in Ancient Egypt they are probaly the Hyksos like Josephus said...
Hyksos: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hyksos#Origins_of_the_Hyksos
Like Revilo P. Oliver writed in "The Jewish Strategy" their behaviour is very close to what jews have done in the last 2 thousand years.
Anonymous: "I think what's referred to as "slavery" in Egypt was more a case of being under the imperial rule of the ancient Egyptians and not having independent, self-rule."
Egyptology knows nothing of a Jewish sojourn in Egypt.
Franklin Ryckaert: "I think the Jewish stories have so much power over us not because we know so much about them but so little."
What White people know about the Jewish sojourn in Poland:
Fiddler on the Roof!
And maybe The Frisco Kid
And maybe, vaguely, "pogroms!"
And … Holocaust!
What White people know about the Jewish sojourn in Poland from the viewpoint of the Poles, who are fellow White people, genetically and culturally:
…?
And the costs and the suffering and the despoliation of the Poles, and the clash between Jewish interests and activities and Polish nationhood?
No! Tevye wouldn't do something bad.
When the individuals with whom one identifies and sympathizes are all on one side, and there is only obliviousness to and lack of interest in any other side (which is actually your side), that's all it takes to make these stories effective.
That's how it works in the Netanyahu speech Tanstaafl quoted, beginning with Yossi Peled, who was physically present and with whom the listeners were invited to identify and identify with Israel.
And the viewpoint of the Iranians who would be attacked, who presents that in the form of an Iranian with whom one would identify? No-one.
And what about the interests and viewpoints of the already war-weary traditional American Whites, who would only be harmed by this war? Do they have a President who speaks for them, and who humanizes their viewpoint, and invites identification with it, and argues for it? No they don't.
Egyptology knows nothing of a Jewish sojourn in Egypt.
Yes, I've heard that there aren't really any ancient Egyptian sources for it. It's possible that this is simply due to them being a small, negligible group among many groups, tribes, clans, ethnic groups under Egyptian imperial rule.
It's also possible, of course, that the story isn't really true, or that it's some mix of fact and legend, or a story from another tribe or culture. There are parallels in the Bible such as the great flood, the story of a baby in the basket, etc. with Sumerian and other Middle Eastern legends that suggest influence.
Anonymous: "Yes, I've heard that there aren't really any ancient Egyptian sources for it."
You heard right.
Yet you remember the emotive story that we were all taught, and you try to think of ways to salvage it, at least in part.
That's the power of a great lie. It can outcompete the truth in the minds of men, over vast time spans and in vast populations spread over great extents.
And the Jewish people have demonstrated a genius for inventing and sustaining self-serving, self-flattering and other-demonizing narratives.
Our culture, and the dreams of our ancestors for thousands of years – brought to you by the same people who run the Hollywood dream factory today.
Anonymous: "It's possible that this is simply due to them being a small, negligible group among many groups, tribes, clans, ethnic groups under Egyptian imperial rule."
But ancient Egypt wasn't an empire of many groups, tribes, clans and ethnic groups. It was made up of nomes, and all the nomes were incredibly Egyptian. The only real division was between Upper Egypt and Lower Egypt. Those were different, but still both very Egyptian. There's more detail I could go into, with exceptions (like the Hyxos) and explanations of why the exceptions don't cut it, but I'd be drifting too far from our topic.
There is a new myth, and a Judaism 2.0. Practically speaking, Judaism is no longer Exodus-centric but Holocaust-centric. That doesn't mean that the Exodus story has been rejected. It's still there, sustaining the Jewish people. But the focus has shifted.
Beating up on the Egyptians, a great people of the ancient world who had the potential to dominate Israel, is no longer relevant. The new chosen enemies, who will be demonized to death if Jewish narratives prevail, are us, White people.
One aspect of a possible attack on Iran is that it's part of that new demonization. The Jewish people have a genius for getting others to do their killing for them. America, White America, Christian America, gets the blame for everything bad that happened in the useless wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, and White people will take the blame for every evil that follows from a war on Iran too.
No amount of Jewish influence in favour of the war, no amount of demonstrated Jewish power and influence in American politics, and no amount of Jewish suppression of people trying to resist and reduce Jewish influence, will stop Jewish people from saying eventually (or straight away) "you were the ones that did it. We didn't make you."
Thanks, knight.
"The thing is, you have all the Christian Right types who understand this and strongly support the war anyway."
How often do they get their way other than when they are lined up behind the Israel lobby, which is powerful regardless of them? Which of their issues other than Israel does Barack Obama regard as "sacrosanct" and "non-negotiable"?
They care strongly about "God's people." (That is the Jews, or "Israel".) But they are not single issue people. They care about a wide variety of issues, mostly around family life (including the definition of marriage) and education. They are not getting their way on any of them, unless you stretch a point to make gun rights their issue in that the same White and rural demographic that makes up most of the Christian right also provides the mass support for gun rights.
These are people who are being displaced, dispossessed and disrespected, who are seeing their values trampled every day, yet on this issue it seems they are powerful.
Strange.
These are people who are being displaced, dispossessed and disrespected, who are seeing their values trampled every day, yet on this issue it seems they are powerful.
The point is that they support the people who are doing the displacing, dispossessing, disrespecting, and trampling, and I think Christians for the most part understand what the Jews are doing to us, yet continue to effectively worship them as "God's chosen" anyway. Christians are basically a submissive and masochistic bunch of people.
Christianity is the main factor that enables the Jews to do what they do to us, which is why the Jews created it and forcibly imposed it on us in the first place.
Also, the idea that Christians' values are being trampled etc. is not really correct. Christianity is a lot stronger today than it was 100 years ago, and the devastating arguments from comparative mythology (developed by Whites) showing the relationship of the Jesus myth to those of various sun gods have been made just as taboo as the facts about race, IQ, and so forth. Jews are keeping Christianity afloat because they know it serves their interests.
One thing that became more apparent in the last years as the demonisation of Europe by the media, this has served the jews and Israel quite well
Like Daybreaker said before American Evagelicals only get their way when associated with the jewish/israeli lobby.
But things have become too obvious, they tried to launch another hate campaign against Obama and Sarkozy France about some time a go without much sucess like in the past.
What the jews want they usually get.
And how will this ever change?
One of the things they always want and usually get is for somebody else to carry their water and then take all the blame. That's the role Christians play vis-a-vis Israel.
Would be nice if they stopped playing that role. Most people are opposed to the wars now, it would be a lot harder for jews to get their way if they couldn't always count on enthusiastic Christian support.
Tanstaafl: "What the jews want they usually get."
Anonymous: "And how will this ever change?"
Through a multitude of tiny acts, such as Tanstaafl maintaining this blog and calling attention to this anti-White and anti-Persian Jewish war-mongering.
There's a lot that can only be achieved by the wealthy and powerful, but that's not our concern.
We ought to learn from the success of Jewish movements that didn't start with any great financial and political backing that sheer application has its place.
Consider the pen-name of Asher Zvi Hirsch Ginsberg, one of the great pre-state Zionist dreamers: Ahad Ha'am, meaning one of the people. That is all we need to aspire to be, all all we need to do is apply our intelligence to the cause of our race.
The point is that they support the people who are doing the displacing, dispossessing, disrespecting, and trampling, and I think Christians for the most part understand what the Jews are doing to us, yet continue to effectively worship them as "God's chosen" anyway.
I've never seen any evidence of this. Not a single Christian Zionist I know has the slightest clue.
The point is that they support the people who are doing the displacing, dispossessing, disrespecting, and trampling, and I think Christians for the most part understand what the Jews are doing to us, yet continue to effectively worship them as "God's chosen" anyway.
I've never seen any evidence of this. Not a single Christian Zionist I know has the slightest clue.
ben tillman: "Not a single Christian Zionist I know has the slightest clue."
The one I know is the same: perfectly helpless, invincibly ignorant, a tool for the ambitions of others (on the rare occasions when he has a little time for politics) and nothing more.
Except in private life, where he's as nice as anybody can get. It's a shame.
And no it is not fair to demand that everybody scrutinizes everything carefully all the time.
For us to have a sane society, most people have to just get along with their lives, trusting in the established authorities and the wisdom of the herd. But sometimes the authorities are treacherous or co-opted or just misinformed, and the herd is headed for disaster.
For individuals to function consistently, particularly in religious matters, they have to stop doubting and build something on a foundation of unshakeable trust. And in doing that, people are sometimes wrong.
Suicide, individual or collective, has nothing to do with it. People can be misled. It's that simple.
Christian Zionists will not respond to any direct information about jewish malevolence because they believe the bible is exactly true as they have been taught.
They might respond to an appeal for their children. Tell them about Clinton telling a university audience in 1998 that Whites will be minority by mid-century. Most Christian Zionists don't like Clinton. Then tell them the same is happening in all White countries. Ask them why they want to leave their children and grandchildren a world where they are a hated, disenfranchised minority EVERYWHERE. Do they think that Jesus hates them?
Anti-racist is a code word for ANTI-WHITE.
I think maybe 5% of Americans know this.
I wonder what Google and Facebook would estimate this figure to be. Sometimes I think 5% is high.
Let's hear about your experience. You're certainly full of shit when you say, "everyone knows it's all for the sake of Israel and will be harmful to (White) Americans."
I think maybe 5% of Americans know this, though I certainly can't prove it. Regardless, the claim that everyone knows it is a ludicrous exaggeration.
Do you live under a rock? The connection between attacking Iran and Israel's interests has been made explicitly clear for years now by virtually all mass media. In fact, one of the most frequently discussed scenarios is one in which Israel itself first launches an attack against Iran. Just go to YouTube and type in "fox news israel iran" and you'll find plenty. Frankly, I'd like to see you point out a mass media outlet where the connection between war on Iran and Israel is NOT explicitly made, because I highly doubt that one exists. Anyone who has heard any news relating to the subject of Iran in the past few years knows the primary motivation for the proposed war is "defending" Israel. I am honestly shocked that anyone could possibly dispute this.
As far as the other side of the equation, the cost to America: the costs of the Iraq and Afghanistan wars are fairly widely discussed, and I think it is generally recognized that Iran would be an even more involved and therefore more expensive undertaking. Government spending is the number one issue for most of the American right. These people know about the cost of the wars.
So I stand by what I said:
- Everyone knows that the primary motivation for attacking Iran is supporting Israel
- Everyone knows that an invasion of Iran would be enormously expensive
It is completely disingenuous to say that people "don't know". It is all out in the open at this point.
Try watching some John Hagee if you want to get inside the minds of Christian Zionists:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=at6Ijb9UuQU
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4eZgo3CXYxA&feature=related
Is the connection not explicit enough for you here? Everyone knows this is about Israel.
"Everyone knows this is about Israel."
You're being obtuse.
The mass of people (including Christian zionists) who "know" it's about Israel, think that it's a good thing. They think the jews are their bestest buddies, think THEY are part of US, or at least necessary for their own salvation. Among the elites who understand that the war is for the jews, and may privately think it's a bad thing, for whatever reason, keep their mouths shut for fear of being branded "anti-semite".
The critical difference is good thing versus bad thing. Anyone can say jews control the media, led the charge to dismantle Jim Crow, are leading the charge to outlaw "hate", run the Fed, have three justices on the Supreme Court, want the American military to bomb Iran, etc as long as you say that as if it's a good thing. Anyone who takes (or can be construed by the jews as taking) the attitude that these are bad things can expect to be tarred and feathered and evicted from the judaized power structure.
In Weaponizing the Jewish Narrative I quoted Elliott Abrams' Blaming the Jews—Again:
"If you were an anti-Semite dedicated to spreading your hatred of Jews, what charges exactly would you make in 21st century America?
. . .
There are two charges you would make. First, the rich Jews control our government. Second, those Jews are trying to push America into war so your sons will have to fight for Israel."
Abrams is just reiterating what "everyone knows".
The mass of people (including Christian zionists) who "know" it's about Israel, think that it's a good thing. They think the jews are their bestest buddies, think THEY are part of US, or at least necessary for their own salvation
Yeah, this has kind of been my point all along. Christians know the war is for Israel, they know it will be costly to the US, and they strongly support it anyway.
You seem to think that this is not a problem?
Netanyahu’s Holocaust rhetoric under fire - FT.com:
"According to Tom Segev, an Israeli historian and the author of a book about Israel and the Holocaust, the Nazi genocide has long had a profound effect on politics: “The Holocaust is a very central element of the Israeli identity. There is not a single day without a reference to the Holocaust in the media . . . and there is not a single Arab leader who has not at some point been compared to Hitler. It is a very old cliché.”
Mr Segev argued that Mr Netanyahu’s comparisons were not unusual as such, but that they came at a moment that many Israelis regarded as too sensitive for rhetorical escalation. “It is legitimate to draw political and historical lessons from the Holocaust – but it is a question of style, of how you use it and how much you use it.”"
The entire article is about the many different ways jews are distressed and feel overemphasis of the holocaust narrative is... bad for the jews.
"You seem to think that this is not a problem?"
You missed my point, which is that jews have much more influence over US political policy than Christians. If tomorrow every Christian decided they didn't support Israel US foreign policy toward Israel would hardly change.
"If a majority of White people didn't want the jews to rule us, then the jews wouldn't be able to."
If we can identify and cooperate as well or better than jews do, I agree.
"Christianity is what makes jewish domination of the White race possible."
Jewish assimilation with and coopting of the White elite is what makes jewish domination possible. The White elite is the least Christian.
The delusions the White elite helps indoctrinate the White masses with are secular: That race doesn't exist or doesn't matter. That "diversity" is our greatest strength. That all men are created equal. The jewish narrative, where jews are always innocent victims and Whites are their historic oppressors.
None of this indoctrination is specifically aimed at or internalized only by Christians.
"Christians know what the jews are doing to us, and they stand behind the jews anyway."
Not in my experience. Christians do not actually understand what the jews are or are doing. When I discuss it with them I encounter the jewish narrative and the delusions mentioned above, just as I do with most Whites who aren't particularly Christian.
Christians internalize the anti-"racist"/pro-jew indoctrination in terms of their religious worldview. Urban atheist hipsters internalize it in terms of their urban atheist hipsterism. And so on. The problem is the indoctrination, not the particular terms in which each White person internalizes it.
"If a majority of White people didn't want the jews to rule us, then the jews wouldn't be able to."
If we can identify and cooperate as well or better than jews do, I agree.
Does Christianity increase or diminish the asabiya of the White race? I would argue that it reduces it enormously. Having a religion that both welcomes all and grants a special, sacred status to the jews is a double whammy.
Here Coren, a Jew who converted to Catholicism, portrays the Jewish control of Hollywood as a good thing but runs afoul of his rabbinical guest.
"That the White elite may be mostly non-Christian does not really refute my point. Why are they able to get away with whoring us out to the jews for their own narrow personal gain?"
Political power doesn't work the way you seem to believe it works. Democracy is only a mask for plutocracy. The true constituency politicians answer to are the wealthy and well-networked, especially those in media and finance. These people, to the extent they aren't jews, or married to jews, or best friends and business partners with jews, do not generally use Christianity to rationalize their cooperation with the anti-White/pro-jew agenda.
Rush Limbaugh, to pick just one example in the news, doesn't ignore the thoroughly judaized nature of politics (including the efforts to get him canned) because he's thinking Christian thoughts. It's because he knows that if he went on the air and named the jew tomorrow, he'd be off the air the next.
Speaking of radio, Christianity didn't keep Father Coughlin from speaking out or keep Christians from listening.
"I also think that jews knew what they were doing when they created Christianity and imposed it on us. It's not an accident that people who worship a jewish god wound up being dominated by jews."
. . .
"Having a religion that both welcomes all and grants a special, sacred status to the jews is a double whammy."
Christianity as jewish narrative 1.0? Sure. But it only justified coexistence, not rule. The current jewish narrative is secular and it's sway extends beyond Christianity. It goes beyond mere tolerance and into White-abnegation. When Christianity reigned, jews were excluded from power as long as they were not Christians. Today the tables are turned. Christians, like everone else, must at least pay lip service to the jews or be excluded.
Thanks for the Coren link.
American Power: Rabbi Shmuley Boteach Accuses Michael Coren of Anti-Semitism
Boteach preaches a perfect example of the jewish narrative even before the argument begins. He paints the jews as the perfectly innocent victims of thousands of years of oppression at the hands of nasty Christians. He expresses the very animosity Coren puts his finger on.
Boteach went to battle stations the moment Coren implied that jewish media influence was associated with something bad - the negative portrayal of Christians. It didn't matter that Coren hadn't even put 2 and 2 together himself, or that he immediately insisted how wonderful he thinks jews and jewish influence is. Boteach could see the turd in the punchbowl, the violation of the most fundamental tenet of the jewish narrative, even if Coren couldn't. From that point on Boteach was in attack mode, making a scene in order to end any further discussion.
BTW, Coren also came up in Jeet Heer, Afraid of Nazis, also having to do with jewish media influence.
Post a Comment
<< Home