Is that a Cicada and a Q and the Greek letter Xi? Could this be a message to the people kind of book?

1Q84: a brilliant and infuriating narrative

https://www.thenational.ae/arts-culture/books/1q84-a-brilliant-and-infuriating-narrative-1.430000

Haruki Murakami may be the most commercially successful, critically revered novelist in international literature, an achievement that could easily cause him a creative drought under the glare of expectation. It seems to have had the opposite effect. 1Q84 is his 12th novel and heralded by many as his masterpiece. Book 1 and Book 2 of the three-volume work were published in Japan in 2009 to great acclaim, selling a million copies in a month. Book 3 followed a year later. (The English translation put its readers through a relatively bearable wait of just a week). It is always gratifying when work of idiosyncratic distinction and ambition garners a mainstream audience, as much as it is fascinating to contemplate why that might be.

Murakami employs alternating protagonists in 1Q84, Tengo and Aomame. Tengo is an aspiring writer and maths teacher, Aomame is an exercise instructor and assassin employed by an eccentric dowager to bump-off men who abuse their wives. The dual narrative technique is something Murakami last employed in Hard Boiled Wonderland, and he has the ellipses, elegant concurrences and echoes afforded by parallel stories down to a fine art. For instance, Tengo's father was a TV licence fee-collector, who dragged his son from door to door every Sunday to watch him yelling at people who couldn't pay. Aomame was raised as a Jehovah's Witness, forced to endure similarly woeful hours of unwelcome house-calls. They shared a passing moment of intensity, a briefly held hand, at the age of 10, but haven't seen one another for 20 years. This is also the first time Murakami has written about a successful novelist and it is touching to read his autobiographical meditations on the conflicting worlds of the imagination and literary status. It even allows for some self-referential gags, as when Tengo's editor comments, "The overall plot is a fantasy, but the descriptive detail is incredibly real," at once capturing the novel within the novel and 1Q84 itself.

Most great novelists have several leitmotifs which they shuffle like a deck of cards between every set of covers. Murakami's novels tend to juxtapose the domestic (especially meal preparation) with sinister conspiracies and covert operations; popular culture and classical music; stories within stories; dreaming and wakefulness. He also has a nice line in humanising stock characters: the embattled lovers, the private detective, the jobless outsider, the ambiguous innocent, the mage-like figure who appears roughly two-thirds of the way through the narrative to explain the plot like a Star Trek villain.

The wide-eyed ingénue who communicates in gnomic fragments is portrayed in this case by Fuka-Eri, a 17-year-old schoolgirl whose short story, Air Chrysalis, is entered in a literary competition, spotted by the oleaginous editor, Komatsu, who enlists Tengo to rewrite the piece. It wins the contest and becomes a runaway bestseller. This wouldn't be a problem if it didn't also contain occult information fiercely protected by Sakigake, the cult Fuka-Eri has escaped from.

Both Aomame and Tengo, it transpires, have slipped into an alternative reality, a situation that reveals itself subtly at first, then definitively: the moon is accompanied by a second smaller, green moon; a schismatic section of Sakigake is linked to a violent showdown between police and followers, which explains the new measures of uniform and arms. Aomame reaches this world by taking a shortcut down an emergency escape stairway off a traffic-jammed motorway. Tengo appears to have reached the world of 1Q84 through his rewriting of Air Chrysalis, inadvertently angering Sakigake by giving away the secrets of their sinister "Little People", who may or may not exist. The novel within a novel also features two moons. The title invites comparisons to George Orwell's masterpiece, but parallels aren't easy to draw. On the surface, 1Q84 is a magic-realist love story that shares an alternative reality but in other ways is far removed from Orwell's cold novel of ideas. In 1Q84, the world has modulated, "like the switching of a track" and the changes tend to reflect the characters' inner turmoil; sort of a surrealist pathetic fallacy.

But Orwell's 1984 has been misappropriated in popular culture as shorthand for CCTV cameras and Murakami's paean is naturally more subtle, its echoes more interesting. Murakami's version of Big Brother is the Little People, who we first encounter crawling out of a young girl's mouth as she sleeps. They are two inches tall, but possess the ability to "wind themselves up" to two feet.

>>10534799

>HOW STUPID THAT THEY RECORDED ALL THIS???

Let's not forget that the white hats have COMPLETELY infiltrated Antifa and BLM in the USA.

One of their jobs would be to collect intel and pass it on to their handlers in Military Intel

However, how easy would it be for them to get the groups to agree to film their actions so that the video can be reviewed and critiqued later. That way they can all learn, and they can all improve their technique.

Making videos becomes a part of who they are, and nobody questions the security of it. Nobody ever reads the works of the enemy and realizes that the NSA can collect all video feeds from mobiles, whether they are being transmitted or not.

As people get arrested for cause, the police obtain these devices with videos and the pile of evidence grows and grows.

In the courts, one witness plus one video means a quick conviction.

>>10534821

Now think of how absolutely stupid it would have been to just chase them all away with an Active Denial System.

Within weeks they would be putting snipers on rooftops

Bombs in random cars and trashcans.

The suburbs and the downtown business core of every city would be in chaos.

Much better to let them play in a few democrat cities, and then catch them all redhanded.

Less people get hurt and killed that way.

And believe me, this was all wargamed in detail by the military.

They know what kind of death counts come from what kind of scenarios.

>>10534835

Almost everyone who posts on this board with angry emotions and cursing and swearing

Is a Clown shill who is a liberal activist being paid to sow division among us.

So, pardon me, if I simply ignore you after this posting.

A good way to sidestep the whole issue of antisemitism that the JIDF shills continually try to stir up, is to go to books (often by Jews) and sources articles on the same topics. You will find that the shills are both wrong and right. The truth has more nuances, and just like in the USA, there are battles going on within multiple factions in the Jewish community. Some factions are very evil, some are good, and some are not jet well informed.

The Invention of the Jewish People

https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/6476509-the-invention-of-the-jewish-people

A historical tour de force that demolishes the myths and taboos that have surrounded Jewish and Israeli history, The Invention of the Jewish People offers a new account of both that demands to be read and reckoned with. Was there really a forced exile in the first century, at the hands of the Romans? Should we regard the Jewish people, throughout two millennia, as both a distinct ethnic group and a putative nation—returned at last to its Biblical homeland?

Shlomo Sand argues that most Jews actually descend from converts, whose native lands were scattered far across the Middle East and Eastern Europe. The formation of a Jewish people and then a Jewish nation out of these disparate groups could only take place under the sway of a new historiography, developing in response to the rise of nationalism throughout Europe. Beneath the biblical back fill of the nineteenth-century historians, and the twentieth-century intellectuals who replaced rabbis as the architects of Jewish identity, The Invention of the Jewish People uncovers a new narrative of Israel’s formation, and proposes a bold analysis of nationalism that accounts for the old myths.

After a long stay on Israel’s bestseller list, and winning the coveted Aujourd’hui Award in France, The Invention of the Jewish People is finally available in English. The central importance of the conflict in the Middle East ensures that Sand’s arguments will reverberate well beyond the historians and politicians that he takes to task. Without an adequate understanding of Israel’s past, capable of superseding today’s opposing views, diplomatic solutions are likely to remain elusive. In this iconoclastic work of history, Shlomo Sand provides the intellectual foundations for a new vision of Israel’s future.

Does this book have any connection to Jared Kushner's work with the peace deal between Israel and the UAE?

>>10534879

And another book, written by a Jew. Pay attention because nobody knows more about the Jews, than the Jews

The Wandering Who? A Study of Jewish Identity Politics

https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/12272274-the-wandering-who-a-study-of-jewish-identity-politics

An investigation of Jewish identity politics and Jewish contemporary ideology using both popular culture and scholarly texts. Jewish identity is tied up with some of the most difficult and contentious issues of today. The purpose in this book is to open many of these issues up for discussion. Since Israel defines itself openly as the Jewish State, we should ask what the notions of Judaism, Jewishness, Jewish culture and Jewish ideology stand for. Gilad examines the tribal aspects embedded in Jewish secular discourse, both Zionist and anti Zionist; the holocaust religion; the meaning of history and time within the Jewish political discourse; the anti-Gentile ideologies entangled within different forms of secular Jewish political discourse and even within the Jewish left. He questions what it is that leads Diaspora Jews to identify themselves with Israel and affiliate with its politics. The devastating state of our world affairs raises an immediate demand for a conceptual shift in our intellectual and philosophical attitude towards politics, identity politics and history.

>>10534879

>>10534923

The 7 page essay, Converts To Colonizers, is attached to this post as a PDF. It summarizes the findings of Shlomo Sand's extensive research

Shlomo Sand, Matai ve’ech humtza ha’am hayehudi? [When and How

Was the Jewish People Invented?]

Resling: Tel Aviv 2008, 94 nis, paperback

358 pp, 1005 8 500 00309 0

CONVERTS TO COLONIZERS?

Gabriel Piterberg

The foundational myths of the state of Israel rest on the notion that, throughout history, the Jews have been descended from a single ethno-biological

core of Judean exiles who had been removed from their ancestral lands in

the first two centuries ce. Shlomo Sand’s When and How Was the Jewish

People Invented? sets out to refute such claims of organic ethnic continuity,

arguing that the idea that the Jews had been exiled across the Mediterranean

world was a creation of the Christian Church—mass displacement as

punishment and constant reminder of who is Israel Veritas—which was conveniently embraced by 19th-century Jewish scholars. Their narratives of a

centuries-long Galut, ‘exile’, and by extension the Zionist project of ‘returning’ to reclaim ancient territories, are based on historical fictions.

>>10534923

Review Essay: The Jewish People Deniers

May 20, 2009 | Written By: Anita Shapira

https://en.idi.org.il/articles/11776

At the heart of Sand's book we find the claim that the Jews of Eastern Europe, the "Yiddish people" by his definition, do not originate with the Jews who came from the Middle East via Ashkenaz to Poland, but with the Khazars, nomadic tribes that built an empire between the Black and the Caspian seas, converted to Judaism in the eighth century, and scattered to the four winds when their state was destroyed between the tenth and thirteenth centuries. Sand claims that until the 1960s the "Zionist reconstructors of the past" (well-known forgers) did not conceal the Khazar origins of Jews but since then, a "time of silence" has cloaked the subject. He surmises that the change stemmed from one of two causes: either (1) decolonization, which made it necessary to prove that Jews are not merely the white settlers of a country not theirs (such claims against Zionism had already emerged at the start of the British Mandate, during that very same period in which, according to Sand, the Zionists did not conceal their Khazar origin); or (2) the added weight given to ethnicity in the politics of identity in the 1970s (but, he claims that the "time of silence" began earlier…). There were people who took pains to play down the Khazar connection, Sand asserts, "as the state's memory mechanisms became established and consolidated in the State of Israel" (pp. 206–8). The idea of a conspiracy of dark forces sitting and plotting what to excise from collective memory reflects the paranoia of an ideological minority that seemingly believes that if they were in power, this is how they would behave.

Have historians really claimed what Sand is attributing to them? It appears that their assertions were far more qualified though they did mention the Khazars and were even enthusiastic about the idea of a Jewish kingdom in the early Middle Ages. On the question of the Khazars, Sand's methods again come to the fore as he grabs at the most unorthodox theory in the field and stretches it to the outer limits of logic and beyond. A few examples: scholars disagree on whether all the Khazars or only the monarchy and aristocratic elite converted to Judaism. To Sand it is clear that all the Khazars converted. When the Khazar state was conquered by the Russians and the royal family and nobility were apparently killed, the sources speak about some of the Khazars converting to Islam and some to Christianity. Some apparently continued to be Jewish, settling in the Crimean Peninsula and the city of Kiev in Russia. What the actual figures were remains unknown, but they did not number in the masses. The sources are very sparse; to the extent that there is any archeological evidence, it is very little. The whole subject straddles the seam between legend and historical reality. The most esteemed scholar of the Khazar monarchy, by Sand's own acknowledgment, is D. M. Dunlop, a British non-Jew in command of the languages needed to study the Khazars, on whom information is found in Arabic, Hebrew, Byzantine and Chinese literature. This information is fragmentary and at times contradictory. Dunlop, at the end of his book, relates to the theory that the Jews of Eastern Europe are the descendants of the Khazars; he states that "This can be dealt with very shortly, because there is little evidence which bears directly upon it, and it unavoidably retains the character of a mere assumption."6 With typical English understatement, he also adds that to speak of East European Jewry, i.e. the Ashkenazim, as the descendants of the Khazars "would be to go much beyond what our imperfect records allow."7 Sand defines Dunlop as "extremely cautious" and the gist of his work as "apprehensive" (p. 227). Certainly, Dunlop was cautious since he did not find any material to corroborate wild flights of fancy. Sand, on the other hand, allows himself to soar beyond the existing historical evidence to history as it might have been.

>>10534883

People who write angry posts filled with swearing and cursing

Are all LIBERAL ACTIVISTS who are paid to be shills

And attempt to sow divisiveness on this board.

Jews Are Not a Race But Jewish Identity is Racist

OCTOBER 12, 2013 BY GILAD ATZMON

https://gilad.online/writings/jews-are-not-a-race-but-jewish-identity-is-racist.html

We were informed this week that the four major female founders of the Ashkenazis show roots in Europe 10,000 to 20,000 years ago. So do most of the minor founders, the study found. Only 8% of the mitochondrial DNA shows signs of being from the Near East.

Gil Atzmon, of the Albert Einstein College of Medicine in New York, who led the research, argued that there had been some evidence of mass conversions, especially of women, to Judaism throughout the Mediterranean in the past. That resulted in about 6 million citizens, or a tenth of the Roman population, who were Jewish.

The practical meaning of this information is simple and far from being new. Ashkenazi Jews are not Semitic and have no roots in Palestine. Needless to say that neither Alan Dershowitz nor Max Blumenthal or myself look particularly oriental. So if Jews are neither a race nor Semitic what is it that bonds them together? The answer is an extreme form of tribal ethnocentrism AKA racism. In short, Jews are not a race but Jewish secular culture is racist to the bone.

Both Zionists and the so-called ‘anti’ are operating within ethnocentric and racially exclusive cells. Israel is the Jews-only State, but it opponents the JVP, IJAB, Jewish Socialist Group etc. are similarly Jews-only political gatherings.

But if Jewish politics is racist, exclusive and often abusive, what exactly legitimizes its anti-racist mantra?

The Wandering Who? A Study Of Jewish Identity Politics, available on Amazon and other booksellers

Gilad Atzmon: Jews, Judaism & Jewishness

https://gilad.online/writings/gilad-atzmon-jews-judaism-jewishness.html

Since Israel defines itself as the ‘Jewish state’ we are entitled to consider what the word ‘Jewish’ stands for.

I tend to differentiate between three distinct (yet occasionally confusing) categories.

1. Jews - the people

1. Judaism - the religion

1. Jewishness - the ideology

During my study of Zionism, Jewish politics, 'identity politics' and culture, I have managed to avoid embroiling myself in the complexity involved with the first category – I do not deal with Jews as a race or an ethnicity. I also generally avoid dealing with Judaism (the religion). In fact, I am the first to admit that the only Jewish collective to support the Palestinians, are groups that exist within the Torah Jews. That such groups support Palestinian self-determination and autonomy is proof enough that aspects of religious Judaism can be interpreted as emphasising ethical precepts.

However – I am very critical of what I view as 'Jewish ideology, and I am also critical of what I consider to be 'Jewish identity politics.'

'Jewish ideology' is basically an amalgam of racially orientated exclusive arguments. It is fuelled by assumptions about 'ethno'-centric supremacy, and ideas such as ‘choseness’. Being a tribal setting then, Jewish ideology defies equality. It also opposes universalism. The followers of that ideology tend to believe that they are somewhat different and even better (chosen) than non Jews. And much Jewish political activity is a formulation, and expression of a tribal exclusive club that demands a ‘Jews only’ entry card.

It is important to note that Jewish ideology and Zionism are not entirely the same In fact, Zionism should be seen as just one manifestation of Jewish ideology. Though Israel is the fruit of the Zionist project it is vital to realise that Zionism does not drive Israeli politics or ideology. In fact, Zionism is largely a Diaspora Jewish discourse.

While early Zionism presented itself as a promise to ‘resolve the Galut ’ (Diaspora) by ‘transforming’ the Diaspora Jew into an ‘authentic civilised’ human being it is important to remember that the last few generations of Israelis have been born in Zion (Palestine) and are, therefore, not entirely shaped by Zionist ideologies. From a Zionist perspective, the modern Israeli is then, a ‘post-revolutionary’ subject. And indeed, I myself, amongst millions of other Israelis, joined the Israeli army because we were Jews not because we were Zionists.

Israelis do, however, follow what I define as Jewish ideology – They practise and perform a number of different measures that are there to maintain Jewish exclusivity on the land. When 94% of Israeli Jews supported IDF's murderous tactics against Gazans at the time of Operation Cast Lead, it wasn’t Zionism that motivated them. It was the total lack of empathy with other human beings. It was blindness towards others. It was supremacy and chauvinism; or, in other words, it was the ugliest homicidal manifestation of their choseness.

Almost every aspect of Israeli politics, whether it is the ‘unilateral disengagement’ or the loyalty oath, can be grasped as an attempt to project and protect Jewish exclusivity on the land (instead of trying to resolve the Galut)

Why I Use the Term ‘AngloZionist’, and Why It’s Important

https://thesaker.is/why-i-use-the-term-anglozionist-and-why-its-important/

Dear friends, I am reposting here an article I have written for Russia Insider which itself is based on something I wrote for this blog in the past. So while hardly new, this is the most updated iteration of my thinking on this topic. I think that this topic is important, crucial really, and this is why I think that revisiting it on a regular basis makes sense. — The Saker

One of the issues over which I am most vehemently criticized, even by well-meaning friends, is my use of the term “AngloZionist”.

After carefully parsing all the arguments of my critics, I wrote a special explanatory note on my blog two years ago, in order to make sure that my argument leaves no room for misunderstanding.

I reproduce it below as a (rather long) introduction to the article which follows, which is essentially a further development of the ideas in my 2014 post.

“To learn who rules over you, simply find out who you are not allowed to criticize“

– Voltaire

(The following quoted section is from the Saker’s blog (with slight modifications), from September 2014)

Why do I speak of “AngloZionists”? I got that question many times in the past, so I am making a separate post about it to (hopefully) explain this once and for all.

1) Anglo:

The USA in an Empire. With roughly 1000 overseas bases (depends on how you count), an undeniably messianic ideology, a bigger defense-offense budget then the rest of the planet combined, 16+ spy agencies, the dollar as the world’s currency, there is no doubt that the US is a planetary Empire.

Where did the US Empire come from? Again, that’s a no-brainer – from the British Empire. Furthermore, the US Empire is really based on a select group of nations: the Echelon countries, Australia, Canada, New Zealand, the UK and, of course, the US. What do these countries have in common? They are the leftovers of the British Empire and they are all English speaking. Notice that France, Germany or Japan are not part of this elite even though they are arguably as important or more to the USA then, say, New Zealand and far more powerful.

So the “Anglo” part is undeniable. And yet, even though “Anglo” is an ethnic/linguistic/cultural category while “Zionist” is a political/ideological one, very rarely do I get an objection about speaking of “Anglos” or the “Anglosphere”.

2) Zionist:

Let’s take the (hyper politically correct) Wikipedia definition of what the word “Zionism” means: it is “a nationalist movement of Jews and Jewish culture that supports the creation of a Jewish homeland in the territory defined as the Land of Israel“. Apparently, no link to the US, the Ukraine or Timbuktu, right? But think again. Why would Jews – whether defined as a religion or an ethnicity – need a homeland anyway? Why can’t they just live wherever they are born, just like Buddhist (a religion) or the African Bushmen (ethnicity) who live in many different countries?

The canonical answer is that Jews have been persecuted everywhere and that therefore they need their own homeland to serve as a safe haven in case of persecutions. Without going into the issue of why Jews were persecuted everywhere and, apparently, in all times, this rationale clearly implies if not the inevitability of more persecutions or, at the very least, a high risk thereof. Let’s accept that for demonstration sake and see what this, in turn, implies.

First, that implies that Jews are inherently threatened by non-Jews who are all at least potential anti-Semites. The threat is so severe that a separate Gentile-free homeland must be created as the only, best and last way to protect Jews worldwide. This, in turn, implies that the continued existence of this homeland should become a vital and irreplaceable priority of all Jews worldwide lest a persecution suddenly breaks out and they have nowhere to go. Furthermore, until all Jews finally “move up” to Israel, they had better be very, very careful as all the goyim around them could literally come down with a sudden case of genocidal anti-Semitism at any moment. Hence all the anti-anti-Semitic organizations a la ADL or UEJF, the Betar clubs, the networks of sayanim, etc.

In other words, far from being a local “dealing with Israel only” phenomenon, Zionism is a worldwide movement whose aim is to protect Jews from the apparently incurable anti-Semitism of the rest of the planet.

How to bring down the elephant in the room

http://thesaker.is/how-to-bring-down-the-elephant-in-the-room/

First, a painful, but necessary, clarification:

Basement crazies. Neocons. Zionists. Israel Lobbyists. Judaics. Jews. Somewhere along this list we bump into the proverbial “elephant in the room”. For some this bumping will happen earlier in the list, for others a little later down the list, but the list will be more or less the same for everybody. Proper etiquette, as least in the West, would want to make us run away from that topic. I won’t. Why? Well, for one thing I am constantly accused of not discussing this elephant. Furthermore, I am afraid that the role this elephant is playing is particularly toxic right now. So let me try to deal with this beast; but first I have to begin with some caveats.

First, terminology: For those who have not seen it, please read my article “Why I use the term AngloZionist and why it is important.” Second, please read my friend Gilad Atzmon’s article “Jews, Judaism & Jewishness” (or, even better, please read his seminal book The Wandering Who). Please note that Gilad specifically excludes Judaics (religious Jews,) from his discussion. He writes: “I do not deal with Jews as a race or an ethnicity. I also generally avoid dealing with Judaism (the religion)”. I very much include them in my discussion. However, I also fully agree with Gilad when he writes that “Jews Are Not a Race, But Jewish Identity is Racist” (those having any doubts about Jews not being a race or ethnicity should read Shlomo Sand’s excellent book “The Invention of the Jewish People“). Lastly, please carefully review my definition of racism as spelled out in my “moderation policies“:

Racism is, in my opinion, not so much the belief that various human groups are different from each other, say like dog breeds can be different, but the belief that the differences between human groups are larger than within the group. Second, racism is also a belief that the biological characteristics of your group somehow pre-determine your actions/choices/values in life. Third, racism often, but not always, assumes a hierarchy amongst human groups (Germanic Aryans over Slavs or Jews, Jews over Gentiles, etc.). I believe that God created all humans with the same purpose and that we are all “brothers in Adam”, that we all equally share the image (eternal and inherent potential for perfection) of God (as opposed to our likeness to Him, which is our temporary and changing individual condition).

To sum it all up, I need to warn both racists and rabid anti-anti-Zionists that I will disappoint them both: the object of my discussion and criticism below will be limited to categories which a person chooses to belong to or endorse (religion, political ideas, etc.) and not categories with which one is born with (race, ethnicity).

Second, so what are Jews if not a race? In my opinion, they are a tribe (which Oxford Dictionaries defines as: a social division in a traditional society consisting of families or communities linked by social, economic, religious, or blood ties, with a common culture and dialect, typically having a recognized leader). A tribe is a group one can chose to join (Elizabeth Taylor) or leave (Gilad Atzmon).

Third, it is precisely and because Jews are a tribe to which we who are non-Jews owe exactly nothing: no special status, neither bad nor good, no special privilege of any kind, no special respect or “sensitivity” – nothing at all. We ought to treat Jews exactly as we treat any other of our fellow human beings: as ye would that men should do to you, do ye also to them likewise (Luke 6:31). So if being Jewish is a choice and if any choice is a legitimate object of discussion and criticism, then (choosing to) being Jewish is a legitimate object of discussion and criticism. Conversely, those who would deny us the right to criticize Jews are, of course, the real racists since they do believe that Jews somehow deserve a special status. In fact, that notion is at the core of the entire Jewish identity and ideology.

''(continued…)

>>10535206

(… continued)

Now let’s come back to our opening list: Basement crazies. Neocons. Zionists. Israel Lobbyists. Judaics. Jews. I submit that these are all legitimate categories as long as it is clear that “Jews by birth only”, what Alain Soral in France calls “the everyday Jews”, are not included in this list. Thus, for our purposes and in this context, these terms are all interchangeable. My own preference still goes for “Zionist” because it combines the ideological racism of secular Jews with the religious racism of Judaics (if you don’t like my choice, just replace “Zionist” with any of the categories I listed above). Zionism used to be secular, but it turned religious during the late 20th century, so now for our purposes this term can encompass both secular and religious Jewish supremacists. Add to this some more or less conservative opinions and mindsets and you have “Ziocons” as an alternative expression.

[Sidebar: This tells you something about the power of the Zionist propaganda machine; I call it the “Ziomedia.” Perhaps I should preface this article with a 700+ explanatory words to try to overcome counter conditioned mental reflexes in the reader to infer I might be an evil anti-Semite. By the way, I am under no illusions either; some Jews or doubleplusgoodthinking shabbos-goyim will still accuse me of racism. This just comes with the territory. But the good news is when I will challenge them to prove their accusation they will walk away empty-handed].

——-

The reason I decided to tackle this issue today is that the forces who broke Trump in less than a month are also the very same forces responsible for his political 180: the Neocons and the US deep state. However, I think that these two concepts can be fused into what I and others have called the “Ziocons”: basically Zionists plus some rabid Anglo imperialists à la Cheney and McCain. Ziocons are the folks who control the US corporate media, Hollywood, Congress, most of academia, etc. These are the folks who organized a ferocious assault on the “nationalist” or “patriotic” wing of Trump supporters and ousted Flynn and Bannon, and these are the folks who basically staged a color revolution against Trump. There is some pretty good evidence that the person in charge of this quiet coup is Jared Kushner, a rabid Zionist. Maybe. Maybe not. This does not really matter; what matters now is to understand what this all means for the rest of us in the “basket of deplorables”, the “99%ers” – basically the rest of the planet.

Making sense of the crazies

Making sense of the motives and goals (one cannot speak of “logic” in this case) of self-deluded racists can be a difficult exercise. But when the “basement crazies” (reminder: this term was first used here) are basically in control of the policies of the US Empire, this becomes a crucial, vital exercise for the survival of the mentally sane. I will now try to outline the reasons behind the “new” Trump policies using two examples: Syria and Russia.

Syria. I think that we can all agree that having the black flag of Daesh fly over Damascus would be a disaster for Israel. Right? Wrong! You are thinking like a mentally sane person. This is not how the Israelis think at all. For them, Daesh is much preferable to Assad not only because Assad is the cornerstone of a unitary Syria, but because Daesh in power gives the Israelis the perfect pretext to establish a “security zone” to “protect” northern Israel. And that, in plain English, means fully occupying and annexing the Golan (a longstanding Israeli dream). Even better, the Israelis know Daesh really well (they helped create it with the USA and Saudi Arabia) and they know that Daesh is a mortal threat to Hezbollah. By putting Daesh into power in Syria, the Israelis hope for a long, bloody and never-ending war in Lebanon and Syria. While their northern neighbors would be plugged into a maelstrom of atrocities and horrors, the Israelis would get to watch it all from across their border while sending a few aircraft from time to time to bomb Hezbollah positions or even innocent civilians under whatever pretext. Remember how the Israelis watched in total delight while their forces bombed the population of Gaza in 2014? With Daesh in power in Damascus, they would get an even better show to take their kids to watch. Finally, and last but definitely not least, the Syrian Christians would be basically completely wiped out. For those who know the hatred Judaics and Jews have always felt for Christianity (even today) it will be clear why the Israelis would want Daesh in power in Syria: Daesh is basically a tool to carve up an even bigger Zionist entity.

(continued…)

>>10535215

(… continued)

Russia. Ziocons, especially ex-Trotskyists turned Neocons, absolutely loathe Russia and everything Russian. I have explained the origins of this hatred elsewhere, so I won’t repeat it all here. You just need to study the genocidal policies against anything Russian of the fist Bolshevik government (which was 80%-85% Jews; don’t believe me? Then listen to Putin himself). I have already discussed “The ancient spiritual roots of russophobia” in a past article and I have also explained what rabbinical Phariseism (what is mistakenly called “Judaism” nowadays) is little more than an “anti-Christianity“(please read those articles if this complex and fascinating history is of interest to you). The bottom line is this: modern Neocons are little else than former Trotskyists who have found a new host to use. Their hatred for everything Russian is still so visceral that they would rather support bona fide Nazis (isn’t this ironic?) in the Ukraine than Russia, which is even more paradoxical if you recall that before the 1917 Bolshevik coup, anti-Jewish feelings were much stronger in what is today the Ukraine than in what is the Russian Federation today. In fact, relations between Russians and Jews have, I would argue, been significantly improving since the Nazi coup in Kiev, much to the chagrin of the relatively few Russians left who truly hate Jews. Even though you will hear a lot of criticism of organized political Jewry in Russia, especially compared to the West, there is very little true anti-Jewish racism in Russia today, and even less publicly expressed in the media (in fact, ‘hate speech’ is illegal in Russia). One thing to keep in mind is that there are many substantial differences between Russian Jews and US Jews, especially among those Russian Jews who deliberately chose not to emigrate to Israel, or some other western country (those interested in this topic can find a more detailed discussion here). Jews in Russia today deliberately chose to stay and that, right there, show a very different attitude than the earlier attitude of those (Jews and non-Jews) who took the first opportunity to get out of Russia as soon as possible. Bottom line – Ziocons feel an overwhelming and always present hatred for Russia and Russians and that factor is one of the key components of their motivations. Unless you take that hatred into account you will never be able to make sense of the Ziocons and their demented policies.

(continued…)

>>10535226

(… continued)

Making sense of Trump

I think that Trump can be criticized for a lot of things, but there is exactly zero evidence of him ever harboring anti-Russian feelings. There is plenty of evidence that he has always been pro-Israeli, but no more than any politician or businessman in the USA. I doubt that Trump even knows where the Golan Heights even are. He probably also does not know that Hezbollah and Daesh are mortal enemies. Yes, Trump is a poorly educated ignoramus who is much better suited to the shows in Las Vegas than to be President of a nuclear superpower, but I don’t see any signs of him being hateful of anybody. More generally, the guy is really not ideological. The best evidence is his goofy idea of building a wall to solve the problem of illegal immigration: he (correctly) identified a problem, but then he came up with a Kindergarten level (pseudo) solution. The same goes for his views on Russia. He probably figured out something along these lines: “Putin is a strong guy, Russia is a strong country, they hate Daesh and want to destroy it – let’s join forces”. The poor man apparently had absolutely no idea of the power and maniacal drive of the Neocons who met him once he entered the White House. Even worse is the fact that he apparently does not realize that they are now using him to try out some pretty demented policies for which they will later try to impeach him as the sole culprit, should things go wrong (and they most definitely will). Frankly, I get the feeling that Trump was basically sincere in his desire to “drain the swamp” but that he is simply not too clever (just the way he betrayed Flynn and Bannon to try to appease the Ziocons is so self-defeating and, frankly, stupid). But even if I am wrong and Trump was “their” plant all along (I still don’t believe that at all), the end result is the same: we now have the Ziocons in total control of BOTH parties in Congress (or, more accurately, both wings of the Ziocon party in Congress), in total control of the White House, the mass media and Hollywood. I am not so sure that they truly are in control of the Pentagon, but when I see the kind of pliable and spineless military figures Trump has recently appointed, I get the feeling that there are only two types of officers left in the top ranks of the US military: retired ones and “ass-kissing little chickenshits” à la Petraeus. Not good. Not good at all. As for the ridiculously bloated (and therefore mostly incompetent) “three letter agencies soup”, it appears that it has been turned from an intelligence community to a highly politicized propaganda community whose main purpose is to justify whatever counter-factual insanity their political bosses can dream up. Again. Not good. Not good at all.

Living with ZOG :-)

ZOG. Or “Zionist Occupation Government”. That used to be the favorite expression of various Jew-haters out there and it’s use was considered the surefire sign of a rabid anti-Semite. And yet, that is precisely what we are now all living with: a Zionist occupation government which has clearly forced Trump to make a 180 on all his campaign promises and which now risks turning the USA into a radioactive desert resulting from a completely artificial and needless confrontation with Russia. To those horrified that I would dare use an expression like ZOG, I will reply in this way: believe me, I am even more upset than you are about having to admit that ZOG is real; I really don’t care for racists of any kind, and most of these ZOG folks looks like real racists to me. But, alas, they are also right! Facts are facts, you cannot deny them or refuse to correctly qualify them that because of the possible “overtones” of the term chosen or because of some invented need to be especially “sensitive” when dealing with some special group. Remember – Jews are not owed any special favor and there is no need to constantly engage in various forms of complex linguistic or mental yoga contortions when discussing them and their role in the modern world. Still, I am using ZOG here just to show that it can be done, but this is not my favorite expression. I just feel that committing the crimethink here will encourage others to come out of their shell and speak freely. At the very least, simply asking the question of whether we do or do not have a Zionist Occupation Government is an extremely important exercise. Hence, for today I ZOG-away :-)

(continued…)

>>10535231

(… continued)

Some might argue with the “occupation” part of the label. Okay – what would you call a regime which is clearly acting in direct opposition to the will of an overwhelming majority of its citizens, and which acts in the interests of a foreign power (with which the USA does not even have a formal treaty)? Because, please make no mistake here, this is not a Trump-specific phenomenon. I think that it all began with Reagan, and that the Ziocons fully seized power with Bill Clinton. Others think that it all began with Kennedy. Whatever may be the case during election after election Americans consistently vote for less war and each time around they get more wars. It is true that most Americans are mentally unable to conceptually analyze the bizarre phenomena of a country with no enemies and formidable natural barriers needs to spend more on wars of aggression then the rest of the planet spends of defense. Nor are they equipped to wonder why the US needs 16/17 intelligence agencies when the vast majority of countries out there do fine with less than 5. Lastly, most Americans do believe that they have some kind of duty to police the planet. True. But at the same time, they are also sick and tired of wars, if only because so many of their relatives, friends and neighbors return from these wars either dead or crippled. That, and the fact that Americans absolutely hate losing. Losing is all the USA has been doing since God knows how long: losing wars against all but the weakest and most defenseless countries out there. Most Americans also would prefer that the money spent abroad on “defending democracy” (i.e. imperialism) be spent at home to help the millions of Americans in dire need in the USA. As the southern rock band Lynyrd Skynyrd (which hails from Jacksonville, Florida) once put it in their songs “Things goin’ on“:

Too many lives they’ve spent across the ocean

Too much money been spent upon the moon

Well, until they make it right

I hope they never sleep at night

They better make some changes

And do it soon

Soon? That song was written in 1978! And since then, nothing has changed. If anything, things have become far worse.

Houston, we got a problem

ZOG is not an American problem. It is a planetary problem, if only because right now ZOG controls the US nuclear arsenal. And Trump, who clearly and unequivocally campaigned on a peace platform, is now sending a “very powerful armada” to the coast of the DPRK. Powerful as this armada might be, it can do absolutely nothing to prevent the DPRK artillery from smashing Seoul into smithereens. You think that I am exaggerating? Business Insider estimated in 2010 that it would take the DPRK 2 hours to completely obliterate Seoul. Why? Because the DPRK has enough artillery pieces to fire 500,000 rounds of artillery on Seoul in the first hour of a conflict, that’s why. Here we are talking about old fashioned, conventional, artillery pieces. Wikipedia says that the DPRK has 8,600 artillery pieces and 4,800 multiple rocket launcher systems. Two days ago a Russian expert said that the real figure was just under 20,000 artillery pieces. Whatever the exact figure, suffice to say that it is “a lot”.

The DPRK also has some more modern but equally dangerous capabilities. Of special importance here are the roughly 200’000 North Korean special forces. Oh sure, these 200,000 are not US Green Beret or Russian Spetsnaz, but they are adequate for their task: to operate deep behind enemy lies and create chaos and destroy key objectives. You tell me – what can the USS Carl Vinson carrier strike group deploy against these well hidden and dispersed 10’000+ artillery pieces and 200,000 special forces? Exactly, nothing at all.

And did I mention that the DPRK has nukes?

No, I did not. First, I am not at all sure that the kind of nukes the DPRK has can be fitted for delivery on a missile. Having a few nukes and having missiles is one thing, having missiles capable of adequately delivering these nukes is quite another. I suppose that DPRK special forces could simply drive a nuke down near Seoul on a run-of-the-mill army truck and blow it up. Or bring it in a container ship somewhere in the general vicinity of a US or Korean base and blow it up. One neat trick would be to load a nuke on a civilian ship, say a fishing vessel, and bring it somewhere near the USS Carl Vinson and then blow it up. Even if the USN ships survive this unscathed, the panic aboard these ships would be total. To be honest, this is mostly Tom Clancy stuff; in real warfare I don’t think that the North Korean nukes would be very useful against a US attack. But you never know — necessity is the mother of invention, as the British like to say.

(continued…)

>>10535238

(…continued)

I don’t believe that Trump is dumb enough to actually strike at North Korea. I think that his dumbass plan is probably to shoot down a DPRK missile to show that he has made “America great again” or something equally asinine. The problem here is that I am not sure at all how Kim Jong-un and his Party minions might react to that kind of loss of face. What if they decided that they needed to fire some more missiles, some in the general direction of US forces in the region (there are fixed US targets all over the place). Then what? How will Trump prove that he is the biggest dog on the block? Could he decide to “punish” the offending missile launch site like he did with the al-Sharyat airbase in Syria? And if Trump does that – what will Kim Jong-un’s reaction be?

To be candid, I don’t think that the “very powerful armada” will do anything other than waste the US taxpayer’s money. I am getting a strong sense that Trump is all about appearance over substance, what the Russians call “показуха” – a kind of fake show of force, full of special effects and “cool” photo ops, but lacking any real substance. Still, being on the receiving end of Trump’s показуха (po-kah-zoo-kha) must be unnerving, especially if you already have natural paranoid tendencies. I am not at all sure that Kim Jong-un will find the presence of the US carrier strike group as pathetic and useless as I do.

Both Russia and Syria have shown an amazing amount of restraint when provoked by Turkey or the US. This is mostly due to the fact that Russian and Syrian leaders are well-educated people who are less concerned with loss of face than with achieving their end result. In direct contrast, both Kim Jong-un and Trump are weak, insecure, leaders with an urgent need to prove to their people (and to themselves!) that they are tough guys. Exactly the most dangerous kind of mindset you want in any nuclear-capable power, be it huge like the USA or tiny like the DPRK.

So what does that have to do with the ZOG and the Ziocons?

Everything.

They are the ONLY ONES who really want to maintain the AngloZionst Empire at any cost. Trump made it clear over and over again that his priority was the USA and the American people, not the Empire. And yet now he is playing a crazy game of “nuclear chicken” with the DPRK. Does that sound like the “real Trump” to you? Maybe – but not to me. All this crazy stuff around the DPRK and the (few) nukes it apparently has, is all just a pretext to “play empire”, to show that, as Obama liked to say, the USA is the “indispensable nation“. God forbid the local countries would deal with that problem alone, without USN carrier strike groups involved in the “solving” of this problem!

[Sidebar: by the way, this is also the exact same situation in Syria: the Russians have single-handedly organized a viable peace-process on the ground and then followed it up with a multi-party conference in Astana, Kazakhstan. Looks great except for one problem: the indispensable nation was not even invited. Even worse, the prospects of peace breaking out became terribly real. The said indispensable nation therefore “invited itself” by illegally (and ineffectually) bombing a Syrian air base and, having now proven its capacity to wreck any peace process, the USA is now right back in center-stage of the negotiations about the future of Syria. In a perverse way, this almost makes sense.]

So yes, we have a problem and that problem is that ZOG is in total control of the Empire and will never accept to let it go, even if that means destroying the USA in the process.

I can imagine the gasp of horror and disgust some of you will have at seeing me use the ZOG expression. I assure you, it is quite deliberate on my part. I want to: 1) wake you up and 2) show you that you cannot allow the discomfort created by conditioning to guide your analyses. As with all the other forms of crimethink, I recommend that you engage in a lot of it, preferably in public, and you will get used to it. First it will be hard, but with time it will get easier (it is also great fun). Furthermore, somebody needs to be the first one to scream: “the emperor has no clothes“. Then, once one person does it, the others realize that it is safe and more follow. The key thing here is not to allow ideological “sacred cows” to roam around your intellectual mindspace and limit you in your thinking. Dogmas should be limited to Divine revelations, not human ideological constructs.

''As you can see, some people have thought long and hard on the problems in the world, and written a lot about it. For the rest you will have to go to his blog…–

Lynyrd Skynyrd - Things Goin' On (studio version)

Have you ever lived down in the ghetto?

Have you ever felt the cold wind blow?

If you don't know what I mean,

Won't you stand up and scream?

'Cause there's things goin' on that you don't know.

Too many lives they've spent across the ocean.

Too much money been spent upon the moon.

Well, until they make it right

I hope they never sleep at night

They better make some changes

And do it soon.

They're goin ruin the air we breathe

Lord have mercy.

They're gonna ruin us all, by and by.

I'm telling you all beware

I don't think they really care

I think they just sit up there

And just get high

>>10535303

Therefore an effective vaccine against COVID

Is actually a vaccine against the common cold.