#JewsandArabsRefusetobeEnemies

 

While the war in Gaza goes on under the effects of the israeli Protective Edge operation (the latest in a series of operations undertaken by the Israeli Defence Forces (IDF) in Gaza in recent years).and the Hamas rocket shelling of israeli towns, two university classmates Abraham Gutman and Dania Darwish have launched the campaign  #JewsandArabsRefusetobeEnemies. Gutman is a 21-year-old Jewish Israeli, while Darwish is a 23-year-old Muslim. The campaign launched in Twitter has gone viral (it can also be accessed at Facebook) and aims to underline the basic human nature of both Peoples and that there is no fundamental reason why they could not live together, in peace and fairness.

Perhaps if, on one side, the messianic dream of Eretz Israel was abandoned and, on the other, atavistic hate was extinguished, the objective of the campaign would have a chance. As things stand, it is unlikely, but not less praiseworthy for trying.

Smedley Butler revisited

 

 

According to Wikipedia “Smedley Darlington Butler (July 30, 1881 – June 21, 1940) was a United States Marine Corps major general, the highest rank authorized at that time, and at the time of his death the most decorated Marine in U.S. history. During his 34-year career as a Marine, he participated in military actions in the Philippines, China, in Central America and the Caribbean during the Banana Wars, and France in World War I. Butler is well known for having later become an outspoken critic of U.S. wars and their consequences, as well as exposing the Business Plot, a purported plan to overthrow the U.S. government.” In 1935 he published a book that with the title “War is a racket” defended the thesis that the USA waged wars with the main purpose of protecting Wall Street and corporate America.

SmartKnowledgeU has produced a modern version of the same thesis expressed in a simple map that requires little comment.

 

Arrogance, Hubris and Evil

The leaked phone conversation today between the EU foreign affairs chief Catherine Ashton and the Estonian foreign affairs minister Urmas Paet, where the estonian minister stated that “There is now stronger and stronger understanding that behind the snipers, it was not Yanukovych, but it was somebody from the new coalition,” gives credence to the article from Dr. Paul Craig Roberts about the crisis in the Ukraine that we excerpt below.

Dr. Paul Craig Roberts is an American economist. He served as an Assistant Secretary of the Treasury in the Reagan Administration and was noted as a co-founder of Reaganomics. He is a former editor and columnist for the Wall Street Journal, Business Week, and Scripps Howard News Service. He has testified before congressional committees on 30 occasions on issues of economic policy.

He has recently published in his blog a series of articles (this, this and this) where he defends the position that what stands behind the “revolution” in the Ukraine is the purpose of the USA and the “West” of controlling that country, with the ultimate goal of weakening Russia on the way to targeting China. As he says, “Only three countries stand in the way of Washington’s hegemony over the world, Russia, China, and Iran.”

“Neocons and the Ukraine Coup” by Robert Parry and “US a full partner in Ukraine debacle” by Stephen Kinzer are also interesting articles defending the same thesis, but here we’ll just excerpt some paragraphs from Dr. Paul Craig Roberts’  “Washington’s Arrogance, Hubris, and Evil Have Set the Stage for War”:

The excerpts:

“As Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn pointed out, it was folly for the Communist Party of the Soviet Union to transfer historic provinces of Russia into Ukraine. At the time it seemed to the Soviet leadership like a good thing to do. Ukraine was part of the Soviet Union and had been ruled by Russia since the 18th century. Adding Russian territory to Ukraine served to water down the nazi elements in western Ukraine that had fought for Hitler during World War 2. Perhaps another factor in the enlargement of Ukraine was the fact of Khrushchev’s Ukrainian heritage.”

“Regardless, it did not matter until the Soviet Union and then the former Russian empire itself fell apart. Under Washington’s pressure, Ukraine became a separate country retaining the Russian provinces, but Russia retained its Black Sea naval base in Crimea.”

“Washington tried, but failed, to take Ukraine in 2004 with the Washington-financed “Orange Revolution.” According to Assistant Secretary of State Victoria Nuland, since this failure Washington has “invested” $5 billion in Ukraine in order to foment agitation for EU membership for Ukraine. EU membership would open Ukraine to looting by Western bankers and corporations, but Washington’s main goal is to establish US missile bases on Russia’s border with Ukraine and to deprive Russia of its Black Sea naval base and military industries in eastern Ukraine. EU membership for Ukraine means NATO membership.”

Washington wants missile bases in Ukraine in order to degrade Russia’s nuclear deterrent, thus reducing Russia’s ability to resist US hegemony. Only three countries stand in the way of Washington’s hegemony over the world, Russia, China, and Iran.”

“Russia has been slow to react to the many years of Washington’s provocations, hoping for some sign of good sense and good will to emerge in the West. Instead, Russia has experienced rising demonization from Washington and European capitals and foaming at the mouth vicious denunciations by the West’s media whores. The bulk of the American and European populations are being brainwashed to see the problem that Washington’s meddling has caused in Ukraine to be Russia’s fault.”

“Note the absurdity of the situation. Kiev has been taken over by ultra-nationalist neo-nazis. A band of ultra-nationalist thugs is the last thing the European Union wants or needs as a member state.”

Everyone needs to understand that Washington is lying about Ukraine just as Washington lied about Saddam Hussein and weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, just as Washington lied about Iranian nukes, just as Washington lied about Syrian president Assad using chemical weapons, just as Washington lied about Afghanistan, Libya, NSA spying, torture. What hasn’t Washington lied about?

“Washington is comprised of three elements: Arrogance, Hubris, and Evil. There is nothing else there.”

TYReads “A Plea for Caution From Russia”

A Plea for Caution From Russia by Vladimir V. Putin @ The New York Times In a rare oped by Russia’s president, Vladimir Putin pleads directly with the american people against USA intervention in Syria. The well crafted article stresses two ideas: 1) America is increasingly perceived not as a democracy, but as an aggressive entity that unilaterally uses brute force to intervene (foster?) in conflicts around the world without legal nor moral justification and 2) American exceptionalism is dangerous because it assumes America is inherently “superior”. He might have a point, or two.

American exceptionalism is the theory that states that the United States is “qualitatively different” from other nations. In this view, America’s exceptionalism stems from its emergence from a revolution, becoming what political scientist Seymour Martin Lipset called “the first new nation” and developing a uniquely American ideology, “Americanism“, based on liberty, egalitarianismindividualismrepublicanismpopulism and laissez-faire. This ideology itself is often referred to as “American exceptionalism.”

The theory of exceptionalism can be traced to Alexis de Tocqueville, the first writer to describe the United States as “exceptional” in 1831 and 1840. The term “American exceptionalism” has been in use since at least the 1920s. Even when there is no historical connexion, the similarities between the concept of “American exceptionalism” and that of the “Chosen People” are apparent.

Although the term does not necessarily imply superiority, many neoconservative and American conservative writers have promoted its use in that sense. To them, the United States is like the biblical shining “City upon a Hill“, and exempt from historical forces that have affected other countries.

The article by Vladimir Putin:

Recent events surrounding Syria have prompted me to speak directly to the American people and their political leaders. It is important to do so at a time of insufficient communication between our societies.

Relations between us have passed through different stages. We stood against each other during the cold war. But we were also allies once, and defeated the Nazis together. The universal international organization — the United Nations — was then established to prevent such devastation from ever happening again.

The United Nations’ founders understood that decisions affecting war and peace should happen only by consensus, and with America’s consent the veto by Security Council permanent members was enshrined in the United Nations Charter. The profound wisdom of this has underpinned the stability of international relations for decades.

No one wants the United Nations to suffer the fate of the League of Nations, which collapsed because it lacked real leverage. This is possible if influential countries bypass the United Nations and take military action without Security Council authorization.

The potential strike by the United States against Syria, despite strong opposition from many countries and major political and religious leaders, including the pope, will result in more innocent victims and escalation, potentially spreading the conflict far beyond Syria’s borders. A strike would increase violence and unleash a new wave of terrorism. It could undermine multilateral efforts to resolve the Iranian nuclear problem and the Israeli-Palestinian conflict and further destabilize the Middle East and North Africa. It could throw the entire system of international law and order out of balance.

Syria is not witnessing a battle for democracy, but an armed conflict between government and opposition in a multireligious country. There are few champions of democracy in Syria. But there are more than enough Qaeda fighters and extremists of all stripes battling the government. The United States State Department has designated Al Nusra Front and the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant, fighting with the opposition, as terrorist organizations. This internal conflict, fueled by foreign weapons supplied to the opposition, is one of the bloodiest in the world.

Mercenaries from Arab countries fighting there, and hundreds of militants from Western countries and even Russia, are an issue of our deep concern. Might they not return to our countries with experience acquired in Syria? After all, after fighting in Libya, extremists moved on to Mali. This threatens us all.

From the outset, Russia has advocated peaceful dialogue enabling Syrians to develop a compromise plan for their own future. We are not protecting the Syrian government, but international law. We need to use the United Nations Security Council and believe that preserving law and order in today’s complex and turbulent world is one of the few ways to keep international relations from sliding into chaos. The law is still the law, and we must follow it whether we like it or not. Under current international law, force is permitted only in self-defense or by the decision of the Security Council. Anything else is unacceptable under the United Nations Charter and would constitute an act of aggression.

No one doubts that poison gas was used in Syria. But there is every reason to believe it was used not by the Syrian Army, but by opposition forces, to provoke intervention by their powerful foreign patrons, who would be siding with the fundamentalists. Reports that militants are preparing another attack — this time against Israel — cannot be ignored.

It is alarming that military intervention in internal conflicts in foreign countries has become commonplace for the United States. Is it in America’s long-term interest? I doubt it. Millions around the world increasingly see America not as a model of democracy but as relying solely on brute force, cobbling coalitions together under the slogan “you’re either with us or against us.”

But force has proved ineffective and pointless. Afghanistan is reeling, and no one can say what will happen after international forces withdraw. Libya is divided into tribes and clans. In Iraq the civil war continues, with dozens killed each day. In the United States, many draw an analogy between Iraq and Syria, and ask why their government would want to repeat recent mistakes.

No matter how targeted the strikes or how sophisticated the weapons, civilian casualties are inevitable, including the elderly and children, whom the strikes are meant to protect.

The world reacts by asking: if you cannot count on international law, then you must find other ways to ensure your security. Thus a growing number of countries seek to acquire weapons of mass destruction. This is logical: if you have the bomb, no one will touch you. We are left with talk of the need to strengthen nonproliferation, when in reality this is being eroded.

We must stop using the language of force and return to the path of civilized diplomatic and political settlement.

A new opportunity to avoid military action has emerged in the past few days. The United States, Russia and all members of the international community must take advantage of the Syrian government’s willingness to place its chemical arsenal under international control for subsequent destruction. Judging by the statements of President Obama, the United States sees this as an alternative to military action.

I welcome the president’s interest in continuing the dialogue with Russia on Syria. We must work together to keep this hope alive, as we agreed to at the Group of 8 meeting in Lough Erne in Northern Ireland in June, and steer the discussion back toward negotiations.

If we can avoid force against Syria, this will improve the atmosphere in international affairs and strengthen mutual trust. It will be our shared success and open the door to cooperation on other critical issues.

My working and personal relationship with President Obama is marked by growing trust. I appreciate this. I carefully studied his address to the nation on Tuesday. And I would rather disagree with a case he made on American exceptionalism, stating that the United States’ policy is “what makes America different. It’s what makes us exceptional.” It is extremely dangerous to encourage people to see themselves as exceptional, whatever the motivation. There are big countries and small countries, rich and poor, those with long democratic traditions and those still finding their way to democracy. Their policies differ, too. We are all different, but when we ask for the Lord’s blessings, we must not forget that God created us equal.

America’s “high moral ground” in Syria

Little miracle: Two years ago, Shakira, whose name means thankful, was discovered badly burned in a bin following a drone attack in Pakistan

Drums of war again. Among unproved allegations of a chemical attack by the Syrian government against its own people, the USA is preparing to go to war, again, and topple the Syrian regime. Not that the Syrian regime is a model one and that deserves praise, but if the allegations of a chemical attack are false, why the relentless march forward of America towards war? There is a geostrategic reason behind it, one that we explored in our previous post Arab Spring, Arab Fall & where it all began, in which we described how Wesley Clark, already in 2001 shortly after the S11 attacks, discovered the blueprint of a plan for a domino-like makeover of most of the Middle East countries, a plan that looking back 12 years into the future, has been executed in all but Syria and Iran. The main beneficiary of such a plan is “the one that cannot be named”.

Syria is a special case though. It is the place where the forces opposing the banking oligarchy that controls the West have decided to make a stand. Not that they care much about the Syrian population, but they care about their interests. These forces are Russia, China and Iran.

America seems to be willing to risk a bigger confrontation and seems to be prepared to justify it with a False Flag operation, which is what the chemical attack allegations seem to be given the fact that the Syrian government, winning the war against “the rebels”, has little to gain and lots to lose by perpetrating such a crime. It would not be the first time and it will most likely not be the last given the nature of the present day USA.

A different issue is whether the USA has any high moral ground on which to base its case for war. We believe that it has none, the country and its owners discredited after the Iraq War based, also (?), on false allegations of use of weapons of mass destruction, and the continuous use of drones in bombing operations, undeclared wars in foreign countries not authorized by the american Congress, where thousands of civilians have been killed or severely injured, like the girl in the photo above, victim of a USA drone attack perpetrated in Pakistan in 2011. High moral ground or shifing moral sands?. The latter.

TYR reads ” 5 Reasons…Mainstream Media…Pro-War”

5 Reasons that Both Mainstream Media – and Gatekeeper “Alternative” Websites – Are Pro-War @ Washington’s Blog  asks why there is so much Pro-War reporting, not only by mainstream media, but also by big “alternative” (blog) websites. Like all Washingtonsblog articles, this one is well researched, but perhaps an image, a chart, will go a long way in order to explain why free journalism barely exists anymore in the USA, although self-censorship also plays a big role in allowing this situation to persist. As Mark Twain once said, “We write frankly and freely but then we ‘modify’ before we print.” Why do we modify the free and frank expression of journalistic truth? We do it out of fear”.

TYR 15 November 2012 reads

The Bernanke-Obama-Keynes Toxic Triangle Dead End @ Zerohedge In this article originally published in Forbes Mark Spitznagel explores Frédéric Bastiat’s observation: “The bad economist pursues a small present good, which will be followed by a great evil to come, while the true economist pursues a great good to come, at the risk of a small present evil.”

The Unabridged Ron Paul Guide To Being A Libertarian @ Zerohedge Ron Paul bids farewell to Congress. The libertarian, honest and constant enemy of the monetary debasement policies of the FED, honest and constant enemy of the imperial foreign policy of the USA government, constant advocate for a small government, sound currency and free markets, in his farewell speech summarizes the  greatest dangers that the American people face today and impede the goal of a free society. They are five:

1. The continuous attack on our civil liberties which threatens the rule of law and our ability to resist the onrush of tyranny.

2. Violent anti-Americanism that has engulfed the world. Because the phenomenon of “blow-back” is not understood or denied, our foreign policy is destined to keep us involved in many wars that we have no business being in. National bankruptcy and a greater threat to our national security will result.

3. The ease in which we go to war, without a declaration by Congress, but accepting international authority from the UN or NATO even for preemptive wars, otherwise known as aggression.

4. A financial political crisis as a consequence of excessive debt, unfunded liabilities, spending, bailouts, and gross discrepancy in wealth distribution going from the middle class to the rich. The danger of central economic planning, by the Federal Reserve must be understood.

5. World government taking over  local and US sovereignty by getting involved in the issues of war, welfare, trade, banking,  a world currency, taxes, property ownership, and private ownership of guns.

TYR reads “The Real Reason Behind War”

by James E. Miller of the Ludwig von Mises Institute of Canada

First some excerpts, then a comment, and finally the article.

The excerpts:

“As economist Joseph Salerno notes: We thus arrive at a universal, praxeological truth about war. War is the outcome of class conflict inherent in the political relationship – the relationship between ruler and ruled, parasite and producer, tax-consumer and taxpayer. The parasitic class makes war with purpose and deliberation in order to conceal and ratchet up their exploitation of the much larger productive class. Thus, a permanent state of war or preparedness for war is optimal from the point of view of the ruling elite, especially one that controls a large and powerful state.”

“Using war as both a diversion and a cover for imperialistic motives is best exemplified by the ongoing tension between the state of Israel and Iran. “

“Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu is so determined to put the boot down on a nuclear Iran that he is actively interfering with the U.S. presidential election with the hope of obtaining military assistance.  He arrogantly carries on this crusade even though there is no evidence of a weapons program and the Iranian government remains a signatory of the nuclear non-proliferation treaty.”

“So why does Netanyahu desperately want war with Iran? “

“..as former Assistant Secretary to the U.S. Treasury and Wall Street Journal editor Paul Craig Roberts points out: the real agenda hiding behind the hysterical concern about an Iranian nuke, is the rightwing Israeli government’s design on the water resources of southern Lebanon.”

“The Israeli government knows that it cannot be forthright and say that it wants Americans to go to war with Iran so that Israel can steal southern Lebanon. But if fear over nonexistent nukes can muster the Western populations to support an attack on Iran, Iran can be eliminated as Hizbollah’s supplier, and Israel can steal the water from Lebanon.”

“The undertaking of war masks this reality for a short period while accelerating the pace at which liberty is stripped away.  In the end, wars are waged to fulfill the sadistic desires of government leaders and to give them an opening to tighten their grip on society.  The parasitic class which makes up the state doesn’t just war with other states; it conducts war against the citizens it claims to protect.”

The comment:

The central idea of the article is that war is always a deliberate policy, exercised by the elites that control the state for their own purposes, which are not the protection of the citizens of the states under whose banners they hide.

This idea has already been expressed before. Major General Smedley Darlington Butler, one of the most colorful officers in the Marine Corps’ long history, was one of the two Marines who received two Medals of Honor for separate acts of outstanding heroism. General Butler was still in his teens when, on 20 May 1898, he was appointed a second lieutenant in the Marine Corps during the Spanish-American War. In the early part of the last century General Butler led assault troops in Nicaragua, Dominican Republic, Mexico and Haiti. He was a regimental commander in France during World War I and later served in China. On 1 October 1931, he was retired upon his own application after completion of 33 years’ service in the Marine Corps. Major General Butler died at the Naval Hospital, Philadelphia, on 21 June 1940, following a four-week illness. After his retirement General Butler wrote a book, War is a Racket, which begins as follows:

“WAR is a racket. It always has been. It is possibly the oldest, easily the most profitable, surely the most vicious. It is the only one international in scope. It is the only one in which the profits are reckoned in dollars and the losses in lives. A racket is best described, I believe, as something that is not what it seems to the majority of the people. Only a small “inside” group knows what it is about. It is conducted for the benefit of the very few, at the expense of the very many. Out of war a few people make huge fortunes.”.

The article:

To mark the 11year anniversary of the Afghanistan occupation, the death toll for the U.S. military reached two thousand.  The soldier who had the misfortune of both dying and becoming a stark symbol of America’s longest running war died under unusual circumstances.  Instead of being killed while on patrol, the unnamed soldier was the victim of an “apparent insider attack” that was conducted by American-backed Afghan forces.  This latest incident comes one week after an announcement by NATO that it would scale back its operations with Afghan security forces after a spike in insider attacks.  At the time of the announcement, a total of fifty one NATO troops had been killed by soldiers wearing Afghan uniforms.

This upsurge in violence committed by supposed allies remains a challenge to the U.S. military which is attempting to arm and train a suitable domestic security force to leave behind as the troop drawdown deadline of late 2014 approaches.  As the Associated Press reports, the internal attacks are “undermining the mantra that both sides are fighting the Taliban “shoulder to shoulder.””

The AP comment is representative of the American public’s understanding of the so-called War on Terror.  Since the attack on the World Trade Center on September 11, 2011, Americans, as well as most Westerners, are under the impression that the U.S. government and its allies are waging war with the Taliban and Al Qaeda.  These radical Islamic terrorist groups are said to threaten America’s way of life.  In the words of former President George Bush on the evening of 9/11, “America was targeted for attack because we’re the brightest beacon for freedom and opportunity in the world.”

This line of reasoning ignores the decades of intervention conducted by the American military and intelligence apparatus which resulted in the deaths of thousands, the overthrow of democratically elected leaders, and financial support for repressive dictators.  Yet as neoconservatives and liberals alike still appeal to this notion to justify American “leadership,” it becomes preposterous in the face of revelations that U.S. tax dollars areaiding rebel militants suspected of being members of Al Qaeda and other terrorist groups. According to the Centre for Research on Globalization, U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton recently pledged $45 million in “non-lethal aid” to the opposition currently trying to overthrow President Bashar al-Assad in Syria.  This “opposition” is labeled as civilian but is actually partly comprised of foreign terrorist brigades including the Libyan Islamic Fighting Group.  The LIFG, which is labeled a terrorist group by the U.S. State Department,is described by the United Nations as “an Al-Qaeda affiliate.”  And as the State Departmentspeculated back in 2011, Al-Qaeda “was believed to be extending its reach into Syria and seeking to exploit the popular uprising against the dictatorship of Bashar al-Assad.”  The Libyan fighters now in Syria also played a crucial role in the overthrowing of former leader Muammar Gaddafi that was supported militarily and financially by the U.S. government.

As Texas Congressman Ron Paul described it,

In Libya we worked with, among others, the rebel Libyan Fighting Group (LIFG) which included foreign elements of al-Qaeda. It has been pointed out that the al-Qaeda affiliated radicals we fought in Iraq were some of the same groups we worked with to overthrow Gaddafi in Libya. Last year in a television interview I predicted that the result of NATO’s bombing of Libya would likely be an increased al-Qaeda presence in the country. I said at the time that we may be delivering al-Qaeda another prize.

Not long after NATO overthrew Gaddafi, the al Qaeda flag was flown over the courthouse in Benghazi.

Such truths may strike the heart of those who unquestioningly support the U.S. government’s War on Terror.  It isn’t just hypocritical that the enemy is being funded by the same people they target, it is a slap in the face of all those who lost their lives on the day the World Trade Centers fell to the ground.  American lawmakers claim to be on the side of freedom and democracy even when they support not only the arming of accused terrorists but also other dictators such as King Abdullah of Saudi Arabia.

If the U.S. government was truly fighting the War on Terror to rid the world of violent extremists and iron-fist authoritarians, it wouldn’t be aiding and abetting their crimes.  So what is the purpose of war then?

The waging of total war is not an act carried out irrationally or on a whim.  Like all human action, it is purposeful and used to achieve particular ends.  And unlike armed conflict between private individuals, war is generally defined as being fought by one or more institutions known as the state.  The state is unique institution in that it holds, as famed sociologist Max Weber defined it, “the claim to the monopoly of the legitimate use of physical force in the enforcement of its order.”  This arrogated authority gives the enforcers of the state the legal right to plunder whatever citizenry happens to be living under their rule.  Whereas in the private sphere all dealings are voluntary by nature, the state’s operations are financed solely through force.  This creates a kind of tension between those coerced into paying and those who live off the proceeds.  War with foreigners can thus be seen as a kind of distraction from the exploitive state of affair known as state governance.

As economist Joseph Salerno notes,

We thus arrive at a universal, praxeological truth about war. War is the outcome of class conflict inherent in the political relationship – the relationship between ruler and ruled, parasite and producer, tax-consumer and taxpayer. The parasitic class makes war with purpose and deliberation in order to conceal and ratchet up their exploitation of the much larger productive class.

Thus, a permanent state of war or preparedness for war is optimal from the point of view of the ruling elite, especially one that controls a large and powerful state.

Historically, freedom has been trampled upon with little remorse or protest during war.  Enhanced domestic surveillance, the outlawing of political dissent, the internment of suspected enemies without due process, robust inflationary policy, higher government spending, increased taxation, and stifling economic intervention are all common occurrences during war.  They are policies that in the absence of war would garner a greater amount of pushback from the public.  Even more crucial is the effect war has on national identity.  Simple reasoning says that government is composed of a small group of individuals; it does not represent in some metaphysical sense all of “the people.”  This distinction is blurred and forgotten during war however as those who insist on fighting appeal to emotion rather than reason.  With the media’s assistance, allegiance to the state is championed as a display of support for war.  Dissenters are openly ridiculed as unpatriotic and friends of the enemy.  As Randolph Bourne wrote in his renowned essay “War is the Health of the State

The moment war is declared, however, the mass of the people, through some spiritual alchemy, become convinced that they have willed and executed the deed themselves. They then, with the exception of a few malcontents, proceed to allow themselves to be regimented, coerced, deranged in all the environments of their lives, and turned into a solid manufactory of destruction toward whatever other people may have, in the appointed scheme of things, come within the range of the Government’s disapprobation. The citizen throws off his contempt and indifference to Government, identifies himself with its purposes, revives all his military memories and symbols, and the State once more walks, an august presence, through the imaginations of men. Patriotism becomes the dominant feeling, and produces immediately that intense and hopeless confusion between the relations which the individual bears and should bear toward the society of which he is a part.

Using war as both a diversion and a cover for imperialistic motives is best exemplified by the ongoing tension between the state of Israel and Iran.  Western media figures have done their best to portray the rulers of Iran as lunatics hell-bent on acquiring nuclear weapons.  Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu is so determined to put the boot down on a nuclear Iran that he is actively interfering with the U.S. presidential election with the hope of obtaining military assistance.  He arrogantly carries on this crusade even though there is no evidence of a weapons program and the Iranian government remains a signatory of the nuclear non-proliferation treaty.

So why does Netanyahu desperately want war with Iran?  Why does he insist with childish tactics such as presenting a picture of a cartoon bomb before the United Nations even as amajority of Israelis and military leaders are opposed to a unilateral attack?   And why must the attack be imminent when U.S. intelligence has indicated that it would take years for the Iranian regime to weaponize their current nuclear program?

Wars aren’t fought because the ruling class that instigates them lacks a good reason.  In the case of Netanyahu and Israel, there are a variety of explanations why state leaders see mass murder as beneficial to their cause.  First, with bank profits falling and economic growth slowing down, Israel’s economy is showing recessionary signs.  War would be a preoccupation from a deteriorating job market.  Second, there has been little noise made over the people of Palestine and their struggle for statehood since the hysteria over Iranian nukes has picked up.  And lastly, as former Assistant Secretary to the U.S. Treasury and Wall Street Journal editor Paul Craig Roberts points out

The real agenda hiding behind the hysterical concern about an Iranian nuke, is the rightwing Israeli government’s design on the water resources of southern Lebanon.

Twice the Israeli government sent the Israeli army into southern Lebanon to occupy and eventually annex the territory. And twice Hizbollah defeated and drove out the vaunted Israeli army.

The Israeli government knows that it cannot be forthright and say that it wants Americans to go to war with Iran so that Israel can steal southern Lebanon. But if fear over nonexistent nukes can muster the Western populations to support an attack on Iran, Iran can be eliminated as Hizbollah’s supplier, and Israel can steal the water from Lebanon.

The conventional validation for perpetual war in the Middle East does not hold when looked at rationally.  When the ideas of nationalism and statist glory are wiped away, the state appears as it really is: institutionalized exploitation of the masses by the few.  The undertaking of war masks this reality for a short period while accelerating the pace at which liberty is stripped away.  In the end, wars are waged to fulfill the sadistic desires of government leaders and to give them an opening to tighten their grip on society.  The parasitic class which makes up the state doesn’t just war with other states; it conducts war against the citizens it claims to protect.

Will America be “engineered” into a war against Iran?

Alt-Market reports that a globalist think-tank suggests using an engineered event as excuse for war with Iran: “what is interesting about this discussion by the Washington Institute For Near East Policy, a Neocon (Globalist) think-tank, is that its primary purpose is not necessarily to debate the current political elements of the Iranian question.  They aren’t contemplating the viability or morality of a war with Iran.  Instead, they are attempting to devise strategies by which the government could CONVINCE the American public and the world that a war with Iran is the “right thing to do”, even if it means fabricating their own justification.  For them, the war is a forgone conclusion, and they will do anything to make it a reality.”

There is a long tradition of false flag operations in recent american history. False flag operations are covert operations designed to deceive in such a way that the operations appear as though they are being carried out by other entities.

The replacement of Iran’s Anglo-Persian Oil Company with five American oil companies and the 1953 Iranian coup d’état was the consequence of the U.S. and British-orchestrated false flag operation, Operation Ajax. Operation Ajax used political intrigue, propaganda, and agreements with Qashqai tribal leaders to depose the democratically elected leader of Iran, Mohammed Mosaddeq. Information regarding the CIA-sponsored coup d’etat has been largely declassified and is available in the CIA archives.

The Gulf of Tonkin incident, or the USS Maddox incident, are the names given to two separate confrontations, one actual and one false, involving North Vietnam and the United States in the waters of the Gulf of Tonkin. The outcome of these two incidents was the passage by Congress of the Gulf of Tonkin Resolution, which granted President Lyndon B. Johnson the authority to assist any Southeast Asian country whose government was considered to be jeopardized by “communist aggression”. The resolution served as Johnson’s legal justification for deploying U.S. conventional forces and the commencement of open warfare against North Vietnam. In 1965, President Johnson commented privately: “For all I know, our Navy was shooting at whales out there.”

The justification of the Iraq War of 2003 and some more recent ones are covered in  Arab Spring, Arab Fall & Where it all began.

NYT: “All the News That’s Fit to…Serve the Powerful”

Daniel Simpson, former NYT journalist was recently interviewed by Russia Today. In the interview he explains the way the NYT really works: “All the News That’s Fit to…serve the powerful”.

He has just published a book, “A Rough Guide to the Darkside“, where he explains how he “threw away a  career as a foreign correspondent, aghast at his paper’s pro-war propaganda. Instead, he tried to start a Summer of Love. Renamed Raoul Djukanovic, he had visions of changing the Balkans with a music festival. A Rough Guide to the Dark Side relates how that dream went spectacularly wrong, leaving him fried on drugs in a hunt for the meaning of life.”

It is never easy…perhaps not even in Mars.