1- The connection between Zionism and the concept of world hegemony (supremacy) is rarely mentioned. It is crucial. It's what gives flavor to the connection between Zionism and Nazism, which now is noted and mentioned more than a little.
2- Pinkas' observation of division within Zionism scratches the surface only. Many Palestinians fought alongside Jews to throw Brits out of The Levant. Decades ago, a relative of such Jews -- she was of Rhodesian birth, and as such a true African-American -- told me that throwing Palestinians out of house and home is not the Zionism her relatives then nor she now support.
3- On the subject of Euro-American supremacy, I published two days ago an open letter to NATO Generals, Admirals, Colonels, and Captains: This Is Harsh, Be Forewarned
bevin just posted a related comment and I replied with an idea I've been holding for awhile. Books exist on this topic.
Nice rant. I would add that US military of all ranks have a political & social responsibility that legally comes before all else: To uphold and defend the US Constitution--which isn't being done in anyway whatsoever and hasn't since October 24,1945. As you say, none of those people are doing their DUTY--what they SWORE AN OATH to perform. I don't harp on that daily as I once did. Perhaps I should do so again.
In their Oath of Office, there is a phrase specifying obedience to *lawful* orders. That means, and they all know it, *Constitutional.*
In this connection, this concept appeals to me as seminal: The USofA is an independent, participating center in a poly-centric architecture of sovereign states.
"..On the one hand, there is an (illiberal) social engineering project posing as liberalism. And on the other, a project to recover the ‘eternal’ values (however imperfect) that once lay behind European civilisation..."
Two points:
1/ The Liberal ideology is and always has been racist to its core. Without racism imperialism is simply crime- confodebce tricks plus robbery with violence. But with a racist justification it is 'morally' transformed into a means of lifting up others, bringing 'superior' culture to distant climes and expanding a system (of slavery) defined as freedom of labour,, trade and expression.
2/ The first reactions against liberalism came from traditionalists, and particularly Christians, who recognised inthe new system, in which charity and public assistance were regarded with horror and, in the extreme statements of eg Malthus, means of keeping the unfit, feckless, unenterprising, alive whereas they should (as slaves who had nothing to offer their masters) be left to die, they saw in that system a modern re-statement of the doctrines of the nomad conquerors, Vikings, Normans, Mongols etc who regarded their victims as fodder- less than human.
We see that attitude, still reflected in the labour policies of Saudi Arabia and the UAE, ruled by thedescendants of desert bedouin raiders who fastened themselves onto the agricultural and trading communities of the Gulf and Red Sea, perfectly articulated by the Zionists who, almost unanimously it seems, believe 'Arabs' Palestinians and goyim generally as inferiors, animals.
Not coincidentally the same attitude towards not only the Russian speaking rebels of the east but Ukrainian people generally (check out the conscription law and accompanying practise) as lesser animals Orcs, cattle etc.
Fascism is the apotheosis of liberalism, not a variant or an alternative but Bentham's liberalism in its purest form.
At risk of sounding like a broken record I will repeat that socialism, capitalism's nemesis, has its origins in the Swiftian conservatism of the first generation of critics of post-Plassey imperialism. In America most of these critics became loyalists and had to flee the 'liberal' revolution of the slaveholders and land speculators.
It was among these peoole that Lord Edward Fitzgerald and his Sergeant Major in Fredricton became, on the one hand a martyr of the '98 and on the other (Peter Porcupine) the founder of the radical (Tory) journalism of the Political Register and the first leader of he working class radicalism that became Chartism, Trade Unionism and the socialist movement in Britain and throughout its empire.
All non-egalitarian systems are oppressive for some members within their societies, most often women who are slaves to the species. Exceptions can be made for those exercising governance as they'll require tools the general populace doesn't require, and the above should hold true for all time periods. Differences in human abilities will cause some distinctions, but once opulence is allowed, egalitarian systems soon become dysfunctional as it undermines longstanding cultural controls on societal behavior. At some point material acquisition becomes more important than continuing an equitable distribution within society and a new set of class distinctions arise create an oppressive hierarchy, with those at the top developing an explanation for their position--religion.
The challenge today is to try and rediscover/recreate egalitarian systems that removes oppression from society. The general idea is that all are workers except for those charged with governance, while opulence is rendered into an outcome shared by the entire society via the development of facilities for that purpose--culture, sport, recreation, etc. Now, how to make that happen.
What you say about those Bedouins is certainly true, but with the proviso they, at least in those UAE outposts, gave up their culture and freedoms to muck down on the coast and profit from and be contaminated (their word) by the traders of every nation
I understand that with regard to DubaÎ especially the ruling clans sent one of their number, a rowdy upstart, there as a form of punishment
Now there is a class society, the rulers rule and still do as they please, most of the rest have been re settled, in endless drab dormitaries, and live out their lives in golden cages, indulging in all sorts of miserables, drinks and drugs, their freedoms extinguished
But it's the Indians and Pakinstanies, slave traded, who are to be pitied, and helped
And of course they agreed to ithe original deal, what's not to like about a system which banished collective decision making, living a very harsh life, and constant fear of the neighbour's dagger, and puts you and your's into glass houses with ac and elevators?
The cities bit was their own mistake, they got greedy
'President Putin – foreshadowing the present tensions with the West – criticised in Munich in 2007 in a pivotal speech what he called the United States’ monopolistic dominance in global relations, and its “almost uncontained hyper use of force in international relations”.
This is one of the rare occasions in which the importance of this speech is underlined
Despite VVP's best attempts with GWB to come to overall lasting agreements, neither were able to do so
And despite VVP's and GWB's sincere mutual regard and friendly relations - VVP thought it necessary to spell out the facts
IMO, Putin at that time didn't understand why the West ignored what Russia had to say--Putin had openly announced Russia's hypersonic creations in 2004 that he hoped would cause a change in policy direction. It didn't, thus Munich 2007. Today, Lavrov provided a new estimation of what the West has done in the western portion of Eurasia. I sense a renewed resolve emanating from Astana after the SCO Foreign Minister Summit.
Thanks Karl - damned if I know, from this side of the equation it seems simple enough
But given the lack of reason and control habitual on the US side, it must be that even if they recognised ....something... they were not in a condition to respond with any rational attitudes
That sounds very weak - but when Lavrov refers to the forums mounted by an Ukrainian restaurant owner- the 'Free Nations of Post Russia' -together with a CIA front the Jamestown Foundation, as an indication of US policies...I am lost of words
thanks karl.. i find pinkas viewpoint very interesting.. i am not sure who is making the parallels between israel and the usa here - was that you or crooke? in some ways this is a valid parallel to make, but i think israels situation at present is much more acute... perhaps some event will happen in the usa to trigger a greater division.. the student protests have certainly fed into this, but again - israel and the neo colonist ideology is the trigger for it... not as many are going to be hip to the concept of rent seeking as a type of colonialism, but i certainly am!
as far as a civil war in israel over this and tel aviv living in a bubble - yes to the later, but i can't see the former happening... i could see a breakdown in the political system, but it favours the hard core elements more then any gentler approach to resolution here - sorry to say... if benny gantz has to follow thru with his ultimatum, an election is coming... perhaps the icc will also authorize what it is recommending at present as well..
Crooke's been writing about the West's polarization for months as it continues. Yes, the Zionist's situation is more acute; and as Crooke notes, it's a hostage to its own policy. Crooke also notes the change in the Gaza battlefield and the fact that the Zionists are losing--the only thing they're winning is the body count, which is the genocide. And Crooke tells us Hezbollah has an air force--missile armed UAVs that aren't kamikazes. The Civil War aspect comes with one side demanding Genocide and the other saying it's impossible, while there's a third force looking for some sort of solution that salvages Israel. And those same dividing lines exist here, but have other baggage. tacked on.
War doesn't need to be physical; it can be intellectual/political. The USA was engaged in a political Civil War prior to 1861 when it was escalated by the Southern Fire Eaters, and the political portion began with the Louisiana Purchase and whether or not it would be Free or Slave territory.
I've been impressed by Crooke's insights, his level of understanding and clarity is extremely valuable. Re: Russia/China, do we have any idea when the recent joint statement will be available in English? I keep refreshing the Chinese Foreign Ministry Communique page to no avail.
Here's the Russian version, http://kremlin.ru/supplement/6132 IMO, an English version will be produced but there's no hurry. It doesn't differ much from the 2022 Declaration in its basic aims and tenets; it's mostly a reaffirmation.
1- The connection between Zionism and the concept of world hegemony (supremacy) is rarely mentioned. It is crucial. It's what gives flavor to the connection between Zionism and Nazism, which now is noted and mentioned more than a little.
2- Pinkas' observation of division within Zionism scratches the surface only. Many Palestinians fought alongside Jews to throw Brits out of The Levant. Decades ago, a relative of such Jews -- she was of Rhodesian birth, and as such a true African-American -- told me that throwing Palestinians out of house and home is not the Zionism her relatives then nor she now support.
3- On the subject of Euro-American supremacy, I published two days ago an open letter to NATO Generals, Admirals, Colonels, and Captains: This Is Harsh, Be Forewarned
https://therevdavidrgraham.substack.com/p/this-is-harsh
https://theological-geography.net/?p=73204
And as a PDF with active links:
https://theological-geography.net/wp-content/uploads/2024/05/The-Myth-Of-Supremacy.pdf
bevin just posted a related comment and I replied with an idea I've been holding for awhile. Books exist on this topic.
Nice rant. I would add that US military of all ranks have a political & social responsibility that legally comes before all else: To uphold and defend the US Constitution--which isn't being done in anyway whatsoever and hasn't since October 24,1945. As you say, none of those people are doing their DUTY--what they SWORE AN OATH to perform. I don't harp on that daily as I once did. Perhaps I should do so again.
In their Oath of Office, there is a phrase specifying obedience to *lawful* orders. That means, and they all know it, *Constitutional.*
In this connection, this concept appeals to me as seminal: The USofA is an independent, participating center in a poly-centric architecture of sovereign states.
"..On the one hand, there is an (illiberal) social engineering project posing as liberalism. And on the other, a project to recover the ‘eternal’ values (however imperfect) that once lay behind European civilisation..."
Two points:
1/ The Liberal ideology is and always has been racist to its core. Without racism imperialism is simply crime- confodebce tricks plus robbery with violence. But with a racist justification it is 'morally' transformed into a means of lifting up others, bringing 'superior' culture to distant climes and expanding a system (of slavery) defined as freedom of labour,, trade and expression.
2/ The first reactions against liberalism came from traditionalists, and particularly Christians, who recognised inthe new system, in which charity and public assistance were regarded with horror and, in the extreme statements of eg Malthus, means of keeping the unfit, feckless, unenterprising, alive whereas they should (as slaves who had nothing to offer their masters) be left to die, they saw in that system a modern re-statement of the doctrines of the nomad conquerors, Vikings, Normans, Mongols etc who regarded their victims as fodder- less than human.
We see that attitude, still reflected in the labour policies of Saudi Arabia and the UAE, ruled by thedescendants of desert bedouin raiders who fastened themselves onto the agricultural and trading communities of the Gulf and Red Sea, perfectly articulated by the Zionists who, almost unanimously it seems, believe 'Arabs' Palestinians and goyim generally as inferiors, animals.
Not coincidentally the same attitude towards not only the Russian speaking rebels of the east but Ukrainian people generally (check out the conscription law and accompanying practise) as lesser animals Orcs, cattle etc.
Fascism is the apotheosis of liberalism, not a variant or an alternative but Bentham's liberalism in its purest form.
At risk of sounding like a broken record I will repeat that socialism, capitalism's nemesis, has its origins in the Swiftian conservatism of the first generation of critics of post-Plassey imperialism. In America most of these critics became loyalists and had to flee the 'liberal' revolution of the slaveholders and land speculators.
It was among these peoole that Lord Edward Fitzgerald and his Sergeant Major in Fredricton became, on the one hand a martyr of the '98 and on the other (Peter Porcupine) the founder of the radical (Tory) journalism of the Political Register and the first leader of he working class radicalism that became Chartism, Trade Unionism and the socialist movement in Britain and throughout its empire.
All non-egalitarian systems are oppressive for some members within their societies, most often women who are slaves to the species. Exceptions can be made for those exercising governance as they'll require tools the general populace doesn't require, and the above should hold true for all time periods. Differences in human abilities will cause some distinctions, but once opulence is allowed, egalitarian systems soon become dysfunctional as it undermines longstanding cultural controls on societal behavior. At some point material acquisition becomes more important than continuing an equitable distribution within society and a new set of class distinctions arise create an oppressive hierarchy, with those at the top developing an explanation for their position--religion.
The challenge today is to try and rediscover/recreate egalitarian systems that removes oppression from society. The general idea is that all are workers except for those charged with governance, while opulence is rendered into an outcome shared by the entire society via the development of facilities for that purpose--culture, sport, recreation, etc. Now, how to make that happen.
Good comment - and very informative
What you say about those Bedouins is certainly true, but with the proviso they, at least in those UAE outposts, gave up their culture and freedoms to muck down on the coast and profit from and be contaminated (their word) by the traders of every nation
I understand that with regard to DubaÎ especially the ruling clans sent one of their number, a rowdy upstart, there as a form of punishment
Now there is a class society, the rulers rule and still do as they please, most of the rest have been re settled, in endless drab dormitaries, and live out their lives in golden cages, indulging in all sorts of miserables, drinks and drugs, their freedoms extinguished
But it's the Indians and Pakinstanies, slave traded, who are to be pitied, and helped
'They agreed to it' - they is the ruling clans
And of course they agreed to ithe original deal, what's not to like about a system which banished collective decision making, living a very harsh life, and constant fear of the neighbour's dagger, and puts you and your's into glass houses with ac and elevators?
The cities bit was their own mistake, they got greedy
Dear Karl - thanks once again for your post
'President Putin – foreshadowing the present tensions with the West – criticised in Munich in 2007 in a pivotal speech what he called the United States’ monopolistic dominance in global relations, and its “almost uncontained hyper use of force in international relations”.
This is one of the rare occasions in which the importance of this speech is underlined
Despite VVP's best attempts with GWB to come to overall lasting agreements, neither were able to do so
And despite VVP's and GWB's sincere mutual regard and friendly relations - VVP thought it necessary to spell out the facts
Saw your comment at Simplicius--perfecto!
IMO, Putin at that time didn't understand why the West ignored what Russia had to say--Putin had openly announced Russia's hypersonic creations in 2004 that he hoped would cause a change in policy direction. It didn't, thus Munich 2007. Today, Lavrov provided a new estimation of what the West has done in the western portion of Eurasia. I sense a renewed resolve emanating from Astana after the SCO Foreign Minister Summit.
Thanks Karl - damned if I know, from this side of the equation it seems simple enough
But given the lack of reason and control habitual on the US side, it must be that even if they recognised ....something... they were not in a condition to respond with any rational attitudes
That sounds very weak - but when Lavrov refers to the forums mounted by an Ukrainian restaurant owner- the 'Free Nations of Post Russia' -together with a CIA front the Jamestown Foundation, as an indication of US policies...I am lost of words
Enjoy Medvedev's essay.
Great piece. Thank you!
thanks karl.. i find pinkas viewpoint very interesting.. i am not sure who is making the parallels between israel and the usa here - was that you or crooke? in some ways this is a valid parallel to make, but i think israels situation at present is much more acute... perhaps some event will happen in the usa to trigger a greater division.. the student protests have certainly fed into this, but again - israel and the neo colonist ideology is the trigger for it... not as many are going to be hip to the concept of rent seeking as a type of colonialism, but i certainly am!
as far as a civil war in israel over this and tel aviv living in a bubble - yes to the later, but i can't see the former happening... i could see a breakdown in the political system, but it favours the hard core elements more then any gentler approach to resolution here - sorry to say... if benny gantz has to follow thru with his ultimatum, an election is coming... perhaps the icc will also authorize what it is recommending at present as well..
Crooke's been writing about the West's polarization for months as it continues. Yes, the Zionist's situation is more acute; and as Crooke notes, it's a hostage to its own policy. Crooke also notes the change in the Gaza battlefield and the fact that the Zionists are losing--the only thing they're winning is the body count, which is the genocide. And Crooke tells us Hezbollah has an air force--missile armed UAVs that aren't kamikazes. The Civil War aspect comes with one side demanding Genocide and the other saying it's impossible, while there's a third force looking for some sort of solution that salvages Israel. And those same dividing lines exist here, but have other baggage. tacked on.
thanks.. maybe my concept of what is a 'civil war' are different and so i suppose it is conceivable here in both instances...
War doesn't need to be physical; it can be intellectual/political. The USA was engaged in a political Civil War prior to 1861 when it was escalated by the Southern Fire Eaters, and the political portion began with the Louisiana Purchase and whether or not it would be Free or Slave territory.
I've been impressed by Crooke's insights, his level of understanding and clarity is extremely valuable. Re: Russia/China, do we have any idea when the recent joint statement will be available in English? I keep refreshing the Chinese Foreign Ministry Communique page to no avail.
Here's the Russian version, http://kremlin.ru/supplement/6132 IMO, an English version will be produced but there's no hurry. It doesn't differ much from the 2022 Declaration in its basic aims and tenets; it's mostly a reaffirmation.