concept pictures, Dartwill Aquila
Most people hearing of a superior race with the right to rule over other races have no problem recognizing the face of evil. Most people. Those who identify with the superior race are often blinded by the glow of their delusions of superiority. They cozy up in the warmth of the glow.
Instead of a race, a nation can be regarded as superior, with the right to rule over other nations. There’s no significant difference between a superior Aryan race with a right to conquer the world, and an indispensable nation with a right to rule the world. That is to say, there is no significant difference between the ideology of Nazi Germany and present day USA.
Leading Americans spit the venom of exceptionality from their stars-and-striped tongues all the time.
“If we have to use force, it is because we are America. We are the indispensable nation.” Madeleine Albright
“The United States is exceptional, and will always be the one indispensable nation in world affairs.” Barack Obama
“One indispensable nation”! Logically that means that all the other nations are dispensable. Read between the lines and it says that you had better do what the indispensable nation demands or find out what dispensable means.
Empires have always, without exception, considered themselves superior to all other peoples and nations. Always. The NAE (North Atlantic Empire/USA) is no different. Unfortunately, those who identify themselves as members of the superior NAE fail to see the implications and consequences of this “indispensable” superiority. The future will judge them on the same scales as those used to weigh the good German citizens under Hitler’s regime. The good Americans, like the good Germans, like the good subjects of every empire that cast its formidable, but temporary, shadow upon the earth, will plead both innocents and ignorance when their world lies in shatters and contempt flows down upon them from former victims of their imperial hubris. Their pleas will serve to intensify the contempt. When leaders speak openly of being exceptional, indispensable and superior, all lack of resistance qualifies as an admission of complicity in the crimes of the leaders, particularly those who stipulate the conditions, “You’re either with us or against us.”
An American (Fascist) Aristocrat SPN
Corridors of Power
F. Scott Fitzgerald described the Ivy Club at Princeton University as being “breathlessly aristocratic”. That was in 1920. It was no less aristocratic in 1970 when Philip Bobbitt was its president. Bobbitt can trace his pedigree to the early southern colonies in the 1600s and names his uncle Lyndon Johnson as one of his mentors.
“Public servant” Bobbitt has served as advisor to presidents Jimmy Carter, Ronald Reagan, George H.W. Bush, Bill Clinton, George W. Bush and now Barak Obama on the Secretary of State’s Advisory Committee on International Law. He frequents The White House as if it was his local pub and seems to have a pass key to all the influential institutions of the government. He’s worked on the charter of the CIA, counseled the Iran-Contra Committee, was director for Intelligence Programs for the National Security Council, etc., etc. & etc. When not whispering in the ears of power, he speaks authoritatively as a professor of international law at Harvard, Colombia, Yale, Princeton, Oxford and the University of Texas. His fan club includes Tony Blair, David Cameron, John Howard and Henry Kissinger who described him as “the* outstanding political philosopher of our time.”
(* Note that Henry says “the” and not “an”.)
You get the picture.
What is the philosophy radiating out of this “outstanding political philosopher”? His book The Shield of Achilles (2002) spells out his philosophy candidly.
Bobbitt doesn’t believe in peace. The search for peace is “fruitless.” War is inevitable and the wise policy makers anticipate it and prepare for it so that they can shape the form it takes. Philip B regards war as a strategic struggle to legitimize the formation of state authority and establish its constitutional order. He uses the term epochal war to designate a greater conflict and exemplifies this with what he calls The Long War that extended from 1914 to 1990 (from the Soviet Revolution to the fall of the Berlin Wall). It consolidated the nation-state.
Now that the nation-state has been established the next epochal war is under way to see who will dominate the market-state. Where the nation-state carried the promise of material welfare for its citizens, the market-state promises opportunities. (Note that I refrain from using sarcasm about the difference between material welfare and opportunities.) Bobbitt encourages leaders to create new forms for the use of force to promote and defend the market-state. Citizens should be employed as mercenaries, civil privacy should be abandoned and surveillance should be increased.
Recognize any of these policies? Bobbitt knew that they would upset some people. “Unaided by the assurance that the political process will not be subordinated to the most powerful market actors, markets can become targets of the alienated and of those who are disenfranchised by any shift away from national or ethnic institutions.”
Are you feeling alienated by corporate rule (“the most powerful market actors”) or disenfranchised by the rulers trashing the country’s traditions and laws (“shift away from national or ethnic institutions”)? Thank Bobbitt!
But don’t be too hard on Professor Phil. When his book The Shield of Achilles came out prestigious people and reviewers calloused their fingertips writing its praises. The entire intellectual, academic and politic elite shower acclaim over this apostle of fascism. Yes, fascism. And I’m not using the word loosely.
The term market-state itself is basically a declaration of fascism. Wiktionary defines fascism as:
“a political regime ideologically based on a relationship between business and the centralized government, business-and-government control of the market place, repression of criticism of opposition.”
Philip B’s market-state goes beyond a mere business-government relationship. It subordinates the political process “to the most powerful market actors.”
“… the market-state promises a ‘virtuous’ circle to those states that copy its form and obey its strictures*. The privatization of state-owned firms brings immense capital gains to the state as it liquidates vast monopolies; this windfall supplements the savings from cuts in welfare programs…” (*Note the aristocratic expression, “obey its strictures”. Also note that public ownership is described as monopolies.)
A Monument of Twisted Logic
In an interview in 2007 on Global Axess Bobbitt claimed the invasion of Iraq was necessary because “we couldn’t predict when Saddam Hussein could acquire nuclear weapons.”
This clearly proves that a monument of academic knowledge can produce ugly twisted reasoning. If the ultimate international crime, the initiation of war, can be justified with Bobbitt’s argument, there is no such thing as international law. Many progressive brats of America are fond of complaining about the stupidity of the “sheeple”. The majority of Americans however know more about the difference between right and wrong—and crimes of aggression—than American professors of international law.
Prof. Phil excels in twisted reasoning. “It takes two states to go to war. /—/ States … may employ aggression, but they do not seek war. Rather it is the state against whom* the aggression has been mounted, typically, that makes the move to war, which is a legal and strategic act”.
(* Note the reference to the state as a person rather than a thing.)
Phil claims that the Vietnam War was “fought to stop aggression by going to war.”
And speaking of twisted logic and Vietnam, Bobbitt wrote an eulogy to former Secretary of Defense Robert McNamara in the NY Times (July 7, 2009). How did Professor Phil describe the man who initiated the bombing campaign that killed millions of Vietnamese? He characterize him as “a man of compassion”.
Many people will be surprised to learn that the intellectual elite of the empire can’t tell the difference between good and evil and worship the prospects of fascism. I suggest they read Jonathan Swift’s Gulliver’s Travels. The seldom-mentioned journey to Laputa (Spanish for whore) describes the illogical scientific fools of this island in the air. Among other things, the titled fools believed that they could determine the guilt of conspiracy suspects (terrorists) by examining their turds.
Turds! Fascist shit doesn’t just happen. It’s dark, hard values are produced by the constipated minds of the aristocrats of power.
“If hypocrisy were a crime we’d have to build a cage around the government”
“Israel” is a fascinating word. According to the Bible it means, “He struggles with god”. This was the name given to Jacob because he struggled with God all night. And won. A ridiculous statement if taken at face value. As a metaphor it opens a treasure of interpretations. In any case, this all-night wrestling match between a shepherd and the creator of the universe should not be regarded as documentary.
Academic Bible researchers tell us that the entire story of creation was added to the Story of Moses as a prologue hundreds of years after the time of Moses. This makes the name Israel even more fascinating. Who were these Israelite-Egyptians who invaded and conquered the land of Canaan?
For one thing, they were not slaves. They were armed. Slaves don’t carry weapons. The Bible refers to them alternatively as tribes and armies. Moses was negotiating for them with the Pharaoh. Pharaohs didn’t negotiate if they didn’t have to. The Pharaohs of today still don’t.
The word Israel seen from an Egyptian perspective contains the “-ra-” element at its center. Ra was the king of Gods and the creator of the universe. The last “-el” of Israel refers to the Hebrew God. A likely interpretation of the word Israel probably echoes a universal declaration that is still heard in our days: We struggle with God ON OUR SIDE.
On the other hand, we have no evidence that the Israelites ever were in Egypt. According to Prof. Ze’ev Herzog, Chief of Archaeology at Tel Aviv University
The Israelites were never in Egypt, did not wander in the desert, did not conquer the land in a military campaign and did not pass it on to the 12 tribes of Israel…. The many Egyptian documents that we have make no mention of the Israelites’ presence in Egypt and are also silent about the events of the exodus.
The lack of notation in Egyptian records is all the more significant if we remind ourselves that Canaan belonged to Egypt at the time Moses was supposed to be splitting seas and receiving stone tablets from a burning bush. Canaan was Egypt’s frontier against the Hittite empire.
We have no non-Biblical evidence of Moses either; nor of Joshua, David, Solomon or the kingdom of Israel itself. Nada. Not among Egyptian writings, Assyrian writings or anywhere. No scratches on walls, no pictures on vases. Nothing. The first written notations of Moses and the Israelites first appear nearly a half millennium after they were supposed to have left Egypt.
Strange!? Not at all. At nearly the same time as the Israelites were blowing down the walls of Jericho, the Greeks were pouring out of a wooden horse in Troy. And both events got written down about the same time some 500 years later. The Bible and the Iliad (and the Odyssey) were the first best-sellers after having been best-tellers for hundreds of years. Achilles and Moses were the Rambo and Terminator of their day.
It’s not even particularly strange that the Bible story was sold as non-fiction. The people who swallowed this story were living in a flat world at the center of the universe right below heaven where God watched over them.
The only strange thing in all of this is that people who claim to be ancestors of the characters in the first action-drama novel have taken a large portion of land belonging to other people in order to reestablish the fiction and call it Israel. That’s more than strange. In a digitally connected world with evolutionary perspective and scientific knowledge, strange doesn’t quite cover it.
But if you have God on your side (whisper: and some ungodly superpowers), you can take any territory you want, “subdued the whole region … leave no survivors … and totally destroy all who breath, just as the Lord, the God of Israel, had commanded.” Joshua 10:40
The creation of today’s Israel initiated a tragedy that painfully developed through destruction, suffering and death toward a catastrophe. Writing about Palestine in the 1934 edition of the Swedish Encyclopedia (Svensk Uppslagsbok), Professor J. Fröden says that the Zionist movement:
intends to give Jews from foreign countries the opportunity to return to ‘their old homeland’. This movement is divorced from reality because Palestine has for hundreds of years been relatively densely occupied by an Arab population that is racially, linguistically, religiously and culturally completely foreign to Jews, and barely any space is available for a new people.
With what right was land taken from the Palestinians and given to the Zionists? Please don’t tell me about a UN decision! Wrong is wrong even if it wears a fancy hat. How would you react if someone took half of your house and gave it to a “foreign” family to live in? For any reason! No one asked the Palestinians. They had no say in the matter.
A big chunk of territory was taken (stolen) from the natives of the land and given to foreign elements not because it was right, just or necessary, but because it fit into superpower plans. All that was needed was some super propaganda. So fireworks of positively loaded words exploded around Zionist puppets dancing in front of a holocaust background and – abracadabra – the theft was sold as justice. Democracy! The victims of the theft were cast as unreasonable people and consequently their rights, needs and opinions were of no value. Despite a Jewish government with a Muslim population, and a dependency of a foreign power (USA), Israel was, and still is, promoted as a democracy. Believe that and we’ll tell you the one where a shepherd defeated the creator of the universe.
Territorial theft or exploitation should surprise no one familiar with superpower politics, but this case was packaged with the poison of religion. Secularization, solidarity, tolerance and socialistically oriented politics enjoyed popular support after the second World War. Putting religion back into politics soured the sweet possibility of unity and peace, and turned the atmosphere bitter with conflict and division.
Israel – A Disease of the Jews.
The only justification for the state of Israel rests on its claim to support Jews. It was created for the sake of Jews. We now have nearly 70 years of experience with which to evaluate this Jewish “haven”.
A little over 40% of the world’s Jews live in Israel. 48% of the Jews live in the USA and western Europe (Western Jews). The Western Jews have lived in peace with their surrounding, have prospered and continue to assimilate into the population at large. The Israeli Jews have been in constant conflict with their surroundings, enjoy no security and have become all the more isolated in the world except for the USA.
Western Jews have done quite well without Israel. The only thing threatening them is the anti-Semitism generating from Israeli politics. The Palestinians have paid a horrible price for the creation and expansion of Israel. The costs are still mounting. It’s just a matter of time before a bill is laid on the table of the Western Jews. That’s the way the poison of religious politics spreads.
Israel claims that all criticism of Israeli politics is anti-Semitism. That’s pure racism. The Zionists are either very stupid or very malicious to dress state policies in religious robes. Perhaps they are both. A long list of prominent and known Jewish critics of Israel exposes the absurdity of that claim.
“The wrongs committed over the past 52 years and reaching back into the last century by Zionism towards the indigenous people of the Holy Land are a ghastly crime.”
Rabbi Meir Hirsh, Neturei Karta in Jerusalem, Palestine.
It seems that Israel is still struggling with God on its side. The God of Israeli however, the god of “kill all the women and children” (Num 31), “leave no survivors … totally destroy all who breath” (Joshua 10), is not the God of justice, love and mercy that the rest of us embraces.
“Those who believe the Bible is documentary are living a fiction.”