THE BRAIN OF “W”: ISRAELI WASHED?
It is instructive to understand the origins of policy within the Executive Branch of the federal government. Under the George W. Bush presidency, there is no need to waste any time referring to Alexander Hamilton, John Jay, James Madison, Thomas Jefferson, Benjamin Franklin, George Washington, or any of the other prominent figures at the organization of the United States of America. Their ideas were aimed at good government for the citizens of this country. They are all “old hat.” None of them envisioned the State of Israel (sic), and, therefore, they cannot be relavant. When a citizen considers those founding fathers, he might well infer that they were some sort of “isolationist.”
Certainly, they were nationalist, and most educated Americans today would agree that that was what Adolph Hitler was. After all, didn’t Hitler advance an idea of something called “national socialism?” Americans today are internationalists who advocate “social security” for everyone–just enter the U.S. and put your back to it! Pay your taxes and you’re in. Soon, it may not even be necessary to enter the U.S. Just request an application form online. After all, the more there are at the top receiving “social security,” the more workers America requires at the base, providing the tax revenue for the S.S. Trust Fund, which pays the retired eligibles. The fact that this tax revenue is put in the general revenue fund, along with income tax, and spent promptly, is a matter of concern only to “worry-warts.” After all, interest-bearing U.S. bonds are substituted for the ready cash, making it possible for the S.S. Trust Fund to collect principal and interest from–from–the same base of citizens who originally paid the cash. Or their children.
Can anyone say: Ponzi Scheme?
Please folks! Don’t get nostalgic for sane government policies. After all, in the end we all die. Get yours NOW!
Hence, the modern sophisticated American must look elsewhere for inspiration. That is what “W” did. He saw a world that seemed confusing to him. Where was the love?
In the past George W. Bush had looked for love in all the wrong places–even in the Nirvana of intoxicants and/or hallucinogens. Even the lowly cheetos were tested.
Then, love walked in and touched “W” on the brow. Suddenly, there was light! George W. Bush heard poetry. How? Consider:
Bush told The Washington Times in an interview published on Jan. 12–prior to his inauguration: “If you want a glimpse of how I think about foreign policy, read Natan Sharansky’s book, The Case for Democracy. It’s a great book.” [AMERICAN FREE PRESS, February 14, 2005, p.14, "Behind the Scenes" column by Michael Collins Piper]
The Washington, D.C.-based newspaper was not the only one to note this “meeting of the minds.” Consider:
Although the news of Sharansky’s profound influence is not widely known among grassroots Americans outside Washington, it is big news in Israel, where The Jerusalem Post headlined a story declaring: “White House takes a page out of Sharansky’s democracy playbook.” The Israeli newspaper went so far as to say on Jan. 20 that Bush is “doing [Sharansky's book] promotion free of charge,” pointing out that the president hyped Sharansky’s book in an interview on CNN. [AMERICAN FREE PRESS, supra, p.15]
Since Americans are now accustomed to hearing politicians, think tank “stars”, and academics speaking very favorably of democracy, only the brave dare criticize the terminology. Suffice it to say that once, in educated circles, it was associated with mob rule. Certainly, in an Age of Information there can be little notice of uniformity of data nor the application of behavioral marketing “tricks” to move the citizenry herd along the desired policy trail. Nevertheless, it might be fruitful to have some knowledge from where “W’s” guru is coming and where he would like policy to go. Consider:
Although he gained worldwide attention in the 1970s as a Soviet dissident, make no mistake in thinking that Sharansky was ever any kind of Western-style free-market conservative or anti-communist. Instead, Sharansky was a traditional old-line communist who–like many others in the Soviet Union–simply ran afoul of the ruling regime. But thanks to an adoring international media, Sharansky capitalized on his imprisonment by the Soviets–accused of being a spy for the CIA–and emerged as a much-touted “human rights activist.”
Later, after his release from prison, Sharansky emigrated to Israel and soon established himself as one of the country’s most outspoken extremist leaders who condemns even Israel’s heavy-handed Prime Minister Ariel Sharon as being “too soft” on Palestinians.” [AMERICAN FREE PRESS, supra, p.14]
The Butcher of Shatila “too soft” on Palestinians–or anyone? Hard to believe. At any rate there is reason to be suspicious of his conflict with Soviet authorities, since many of these are Jews. However, if legitimate, it might represent a continuing conflict between the Trotskyite wing of communism and the “Bonapartist” Stalinist faction. Certainly, subsequent events would suggest that Sharansky’s Trotskyitism is closely related to the Jewish Messianic mission. Consider:
The fact that Sharansky happens to be in charge of “Diaspora affairs” in the Israeli cabinet is significant. The term “Diaspora” refers to all Jews living outside the borders of Israel. The “mission statement” of Sharansky’s cabinet office says it places its “emphasis on Israel, Zionism, Jerusalem and the interdependence of Jews worldwide. In essence, this translates into a single, general aim: securing the existence and the future of the Jewish people wherever they are.” Sharansky is no less than a powerful spokeman for the worldwide Zionist movement. And now, beyond any question, his views are directing Bush’s worldview. [AMERICAN FREE PRESS, supra, p.15]
No wonder Jews are leaders in the “borderless world” (excluding the State of Israel)! It is this view of Sharansky, as well as other Jews, that compels them to deconstruct the laws of other countries until they can be rebuilt along lines congenial to such Jews. This generally means, that the law of the land must be in accord with the Talmud, which is the “received knowledge of the Law”–meaning the compiled interpretations of rabbis over time. The law of the land must not be allowed to conflict in major ways with the Jewish World Agenda. The Talmud is the way of life for most Jews. “Securing the existence” of this Jewish way requires the elimination of all threats. This explains our Middle East policies. They are meant to secure Jewry. One look at “W,” and his Jewish derivation is apparent. The large number of Jews who have passed through “W’s” Executive branch as “high appointees” helps to unite and solidify the policy decisions. Consider:
It was the [Washington]Post which revealed that two well-known “neo-conservative” supporters of Israel–William Kristol, publisher of Billionaire Rupert Murdoch’s Weekly Standard magazine, and psychiatrist-turned-pundit Charles Krauthammer, a strident advocate for harsh U.S. military and economic warfare against the Arab and Muslim worlds–were also among those brought in to help draft the president’s address.
Kristol and Krauthammer are generally acknowledged in the mainstream media in America as being among those dubbed by AFP as “the high priests of war.” The two were instrumental in promoting the U.S. war against Iraq, which was a measure high up on Israel’s “want list” for the Bush administration.
The individual on the White house staff whom the Post says helped set up the planning conferences to direct Bush’s thinking was Peter Wehner, who is director of the White House Office of Strategic Initiatives.
Wehner is a Kristol protege, having been his deputy when Kristol was chief of staff for former Reagan administration Education Secretary William Bennett. Bennett had been a protege of Kristol’s father, famed “ex-Trotskyite” communist-turned-neo-conservative, Irving Kristol. [AMERICAN FREE PRESS, supra, p.14]
Why would all these former Trotskyites give up their old affiliation for another designation? One possible explanation is founded on the incredibly broad and deep hold that world Jewry has achieved on the destinies of people both West and East. Mao once stated that “the East is Red” [It sort of recalls the Biblical statement that "Edom is red"]. Today’s linear, political descendants of Mao can say “the East is neo-conservative.” As debt-money flows freely around the world, the need for guns and instant revolution recede into a faint memory. A new Democratic spirit in China and the world guarantees that there will be a vast herd of citizens who will submit to the dictatorship of the herd for the sake of American style Social Security. They will not know that it is a dictatorship because they will have accepted the tenets on the basis of sloguns, the peculiar meaning of which each person imagines on the basis of his own vanity and delusion. Knowledge is power. The herd will have little or none of it.
Let take a farewell look at the Jewish World Order percolating about the George W. Bush administration. Consider:
On December 13, 2002, Counterpunch magazine…featured an article raising the questions of “the Bush administration’s dual loyalities” and provided a fascinating overview of the neo-conservative network that ultimately led America to war. The authors were Bill and Kathleen Christison, a husband-and-wife team of former veteran U.S. Central Intelligence Agency analysts. They cited the Israeli sympathies of top neo-conservative policy makers inside the Bush administration, pointing out that–indeed–these neo-conservatives were closely aligned with the ideology of the Likud bloc in Israel. Their summary of the “cast of characters” among the neo-conservatives is precise and worth noting:
“Deputy Secretary of Defense Paul Wolfowitz leads the pack. He was a protege of Richard Perle, who heads the prominent Pentagon advisory body, the Defense Policy Board…
“Wolfowitz in turn is the mentor of Lewis ‘Scooter’ Libby, now Vice President Cheney’s chief of staff who was first a student of Wolfowitz and later a subordinate during the 1980s in both the State and the Defense Departments.
“Another Perle protege is Douglas Feith, who is currently undersecreary of defense for policy, the department’s number-three-man…
“Assistant Secretaries Peter Rodman and Dov Zakheim, old hands from the Reagan administration when the neo-cons first flourished, fill out the subcabinet ranks at Defense. At lower levels, the Israel and the Syria/Lebanon desk officers at Defense are imports from the Washington Institute for Near East Policy, a think tank spun off from the pro-Israel lobby organization, AIPAC.
“Neo-conservatives have not made many inroads at the State Department, except for John Bolton, an American Enterprise Institute hawk and Israeli proponent who is said to have been forced on a reluctant Colin Powell as undersecretary for arms control. Bolton’s special assistant is David Wurmser, who wrote and/or co-authored with Perle and Feith at least two strategy papers for Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu in 1966.
“Wurmser’s wife, Meyrav Wurmser, is a co-founder of the media-watch website MEMRI (Middle East Media Research Institute)., which is run by retired Israeli military and intelligence officers and specializes in translating and widely circulating Arab media and statements by Arab leaders…Although it inevitably translates and circulates the most extreme of Arab statements, it ignores moderate Arab commentary and extremist Hebrew statements.
“In the vice president’s office, Cheney has established his own personal national security staff, run by aides known to be very pro-Israel. The deputy director of the staff, John Hannah, is a former fellow of the Israeli-oriented Washington Institute.
“On the National Security Council staff, the newly appointed director of Middle East affairs is Elliott Abrams, who came to prominence after pleading guilty to withholding information from Congress during the Iran-contra scandal (and was pardoned by President Bush the elder) and who has been a vocal proponent of right-wing Israeli positions. Putting him in a key policymaking position on the Palestinian-Israeli conflict is like entrustiing the henhouse to a fox….” [The High Priests Of War, Michael Collins Piper,pp.12-13]
Besides this partial listing of “children” of Sharansky, one must reflect on the clear group promotion. One must wonder how broad and deep they have been able to “embed” their “fellow-travelers” in the bureaucracy of important agencies dealing with policy. These people may be setting policies for many years by developing “data” calculated to support a proposition, which can be utilized, whole or in part, by future appointed “stars of David.”
Meanwhile, “W” is a good bet to lead us by misrepresentations into an armed conflict with Iran. It is a policy made in the State of Israel (sic) and each “trumped up” pretext bears upon its body a little “k” (for kosher). “W” may successfully “nuke” Iran, but ultimately he will defeat the United States of America. “Choose your enemy well, for you will become your enemy.”
Nomoonnight, 2008.
