The dust of time is settling on the Scripal affair, after the eruption of British anti-Russian bile, bursting out from the deep state, and scattered to the four winds by the deep-state’s minions. Bile converted into imaginative insults and tokens of contempt for which sometimes it is not easy to find a name – for they are real but escape an attempt to describe them. Including, for example, the asinine and uninformed reference by the Foreign Secretary to “Crime and Punishment,” his knowledge of which, as indicated by the Russian UN Ambassador, is – to be kind – approximate.
And equally including those members of Parliament, nodding and applauding the Prime Minister, unstoppable in her litany of insults and accusations towards Russia – proving that insolence always propagates itself. Indeed, from the times of ancient Rome, corruption would always supply flatterers eager to applaud, and ministers prepared to serve the fear or the avarice, the manias or the oddities of their masters.
Predictably, the memory of the event will be swept up in the gulf of blind forgetfulness and dark oblivion – especially considering the ridicule of the whole affair, since it has become quasi-official that the ex-spy and his daughter were victims of an opiates’ overdose rather than poison gas.
However, as the puppets involved could not injure Russia by invectives, they have now combined to erase the memory of the event by silence, or with silence to pretend that it never happened. Nevertheless, sundry retaliatory sanctions and exclusions against Russia, prompted by England and copied by Europe and America, remain extant. While the usual media suspects keep their tongue employed with very little assistance from memory or reflection. Or they call for assistance professors of profound learning, thirsty wallets and merchantable faith.
The American mirror of the Scripal affair is Trump’s alleged “Collusion with Russia” to win the presidency. Endless media repetition of ‘collusion’ and ‘Russia,’ thus associating one term with the other, is another practical example of sacrificing sense to sound.
Quite likely, it has occurred to the observant reader that the narrative of mainstream news is anchored in a safe harbor of prejudices.
For who hates Russia, also loves Europe and the Euro, favors US intervention in Syria, is mad at Maduro’s “dictatorship,” labels as “populists” the defenders of their nation against demographic invasions from the third-world, thinks of Iran as a den of devils, calls Assad a butcher, likes his well-financed jihadist enemies, rates the coup in Ukraine a triumph of democracy and decries the reconnection of Crimea with Russia. It’s almost a compulsive conspiracy theory in reverse.
These prejudices form a clump of convictions not even attributable to a specific ideology, for convictions and prejudices live in harmonious contradiction with each other. Notably, for example, calling for peace while waging war, and extolling democracy at large, while supporting, sustaining and selling massive volumes of lethal arms to Saudi Arabia.
Saudi Arabia, which is an updated embodiment of medieval despotism, along with the Gulf’s petro-monarchies, the heritage of Britain when she was still an empire. Pretending to amity with the Arab people and support for their unity (Lawrence of Arabia docet…), only to shamefully betray them even at Britain’s cost in blood (read Judaic anti-British terrorism in Palestine), let alone credibility.
Therefore the referred-to clump of convictions does not constitute an ideology. Rather it is a kind of self-sustaining mental family of factoids, where empirical evidence, let alone coherence, is un-necessary. For the strength of the factoids lies only in its being imposed by authority and repetition. And, recently, even in the persecution and prosecution of dissenters, thanks to the new instruments of “fake news” and “hate speech.”
“We create our own reality,” said the blood-thirsty US defense-secretary Rumsfeld, at the time of the Iraq war, when a naive journalist dared to question him about one particularly unbelievable statement of fact.
Still, even an ideological castle of rubbish, a fictitious structure, arbitrarily called ‘reality’, requires some scaffolding. Authority protects the castle from criticism, but the structure would be subject to dangerous cracks, should empirical reality expose any. Which probably explains, in the instance, the sudden veil of silence on the Scripal affair. Or, as an ingenious observer put it, the clump of invented convictions, of which the Scripal affair is one, constitutes a “wholistic approach to reality.”
For very dangerous to the castle of rubbish would be a spontaneous mobilization of more than a few heads who do not exempt themselves from thought. To prevent it, TV shows simulate a parallel reality, aimed at making less tragic the anxiety for the future and less ridiculous the perception of the present.
All this a good part of the world well knows, yet none knows well, including yours truly, where to start, or how to create a movement organized enough to offer a viable ideological counter-current, based on empirical truth, for the world at large.
Which brings me to say something that may be, or is, unsavory, though uttered by an unimpeachable mouth.
Among the euphemisms of our current new-speak is the term “deep state,” of which, in the Scripal instance and others, the British government showed itself to be its unashamed purveyor and voice. In attempting to discover the details and the depth of the “deep state”, our curiosity would probably consume itself in toilsome and disappointed effort.
Still, Neo-Conservatives,” or “Neo-Cons,” are the currently accepted outward expression of the “Deep State.” Here next I quote the definition of “neo-cons”, given to the New York Times by Bill Kristol, son of Irving Kristol, a Judaic Marxist from the Soviet Union.
Initially a Communist, Irving Kristol belonged to a loud Trotskyist anti-Soviet group, which later became known as “The New York Intellectuals.” He was a fellow of the American Academy of Arts and Sciences, a member of the Council on Foreign Relations and a fellow emeritus at the American Enterprise Institute. A contributor to The Wall Street Journal, he also served on the Council of the National Endowment for the Humanities (Democracy).
I italicized the institutions universally acknowledged as shaping both internal and foreign American policies. George W. Bush gave him the Medal of Freedom, the nation’s highest civilian honor. Kristol senior is considered the father of the Neo-Conservatives.
Irving Kristol’s son is Bill, a quintessential neo-conservative. In an interview with the New York Times, said that, in the term “Neo-Cons”, ‘neo’ means ‘new’ and ‘con’ means ‘Jews.’ A statement probably and pragmatically true, considering the ostentatious influence of the neo-cons, especially in foreign policies.
But Kristol’s frankness also shines a light onto the elephant that polite (and supposedly clever) people in the room must ignore. For if Joe Biden, VP of the United States says, as he did, for example, that Judaic influence were behind same-sex marriage, he is applauded. But if someone who disagrees with same-sex marriages says the same thing he is an anti-Semite.
It is OK to say that Iraq never had weapons of mass destruction. But a Gentile quoting the New York Times – which claims that without the neo-cons there would not have been a war in Iraq – is anti-Semitic.
I borrow from Michael Jones a schematic description of the characteristics of the “neo-conservatives.” The quotes mean that Conservatism is too wide a notion to be compressed into a verbal label. Or rather, that there is both a practical and an ideological divide between neo-cons and more traditional American conservatives, an issue outside the scope of this post.
However, it is demonstrably true that today’s neo-cons are an extension of Judaic-Israeli interests, politics and ideology. Whose characteristics can be described as follows:
— A deep concern with furthering specific Judaic interests, such as helping Israel or promoting immigration (in the US and Europe).
— Issues are framed in a rhetoric of universalism rather than Judaic particularism. (e.g. mass immigration is good in itself and who opposes it is a racist – exception made for Israel that opposes it, but is not racist.)
— Issues are framed in moral terms, and an attitude of moral superiority pervades the movement.
— Key cultural ideas are centered around charismatic leaders. For example, Boas (Darwin was wrong – there are no races, only superstructures), Trotsky, Freud, etc. Interested readers may check the post, “The Fraud of Freud.”)
— Judaic thought forms a cohesive, mutually reinforcing core.
— Some Gentiles appear in highly visible roles, but act as spokespersons for the movement. See for example the US representative at the UN – a pawn of wickedness in the guise of a woman, in whom penury of knowledge and vulgarity of sentiment were never so unhappily disguised.
— A pronounced ingroup/outgroup atmosphere within the movement—dissenters are portrayed as the personification of evil and are expunged from the movement.
— The movement is irrational in the sense that it is fundamentally concerned with using available intellectual resources to advance a political cause.
— The movement is associated with the most prestigious academic institutions.
— Access to prestigious and mainstream media sources, partly as a result of practical Judaic ownership of media and entertainment channels.
— Active involvement of the wider Judaic community in supporting the movement
…, and, I will add, the extraordinary ability of the sect to be, appear and act as a monolith. A phenomenon unique in history, which may explain why, when the sect reached the extreme of tolerance by the local populations, it was often expelled en mass, as any of them was deemed indistinguishable from the whole.
To sprinkle an anecdote on the text, each night at 10 PM the bells of Strasbourg’s Cathedral in France sound the Zehnerglock, a reminder of the associated Judenblos, (Juden horn), which notified them to leave the city. The association of the Zehnerglock with the night-banning of the members of the sect from the city stopped in 1790, but as of today, the 10 PM bell is still considered a reminder of that tradition.
Those members of the sect who criticize the critics of the sect’s practices, and accuse gentiles of indiscriminate generalization, actually prove the point. For in the very defense of the sect, they prove its core monolithic structure.
The influence of Judaic interests in the political, financial sphere and military ventures is universally acknowledged. Relatively less known is how a historically recent contributor to the Judaic monolith’s success has been…. the Catholic Church. The thread to justify the statement is lengthy, and there is only so much that can be written before it becomes too much. Let the patient reader forgive the omissions.
To begin with – and I have observed this directly more than once – there is a perception at large, including among many Catholics, that Hitler was the father of so-called anti-Semitism. Hitler was bad – therefore, for the indifferent children of the earth, anything associated with Hitler is diabolic.
But for many, ‘Semitism’ is a somewhat nebulous term, as compared to, say, “Israel.” Which may explain the strenuous ongoing effort by the interested parties to declare any criticism of Israel “anti-Semitism,’ or better, a “hate-crime.”
Nevertheless, as we know, the so-called “Judaic Question” is as old as Christianity. And in relatively recent historic times (1880-1890), Judaic influence drew sharp criticism from many sources, including and notably the Catholic Church. Here, for example, is a translated extract from a 1890 issue of “Civilta’ Cattolica,” one of the key media organs of the Jesuits and the Vatican,
“The XIXth century will end, in Europe, leaving her in the throngs of a very sad issue, of which the XXth century will feel consequences so calamitous, as to induce her (Europe) to drastically deal with it. We refer to the improperly-called “Semitic Question,” that more accurately should be called “Judaic Question” – which is connected via an intimate link, to the economic, moral, political and religious conditions of Europe.
How fervid at present and how much this question perturbs the major nations, is manifest by the common cry against the invasion by Jews in all spheres of public and social life; by the leagues formed to slow its advance in France, Austria, Germany, Italy, Russia, Rumania and elsewhere. By the calls for action in various Parliaments – by the large number of newspaper articles, books and pamphlets that are constantly printed, all showing the need to stem the growth of this plague, and to combat it, showing evidence of its very pernicious consequences…
Naively, some try to show that the ”Judaic Question” is the result of a (Christian) hatred of the (Judaic) religion or sect. Mosaism (read ‘religion inspired by Moses) in itself could not be an argument for hatred…. for it was the antecedent of Christianity… But for centuries Judaism has turned its back on Mosaism, exchanging it with the Talmud, quintessence of that pharisaism, many times blasted by Christ…. And although Talmudism is an integral element of the Jewish question, we cannot say that (Talmudism) is all that relevant to it (Judaic question). For in Talmudism the Christian nations detest not so much the theological part, almost reduced to insignificance, but the moral one, that contradicts the elementary principles of natural ethics…. “
And in a starkly foretelling book, written at the end of the XIXth century by Georg Ratzinger, great uncle of Pope Benedict XVI, and titled “Die Volkswirtschaft in ihren sittlichen Grundlagen” (The national economy in its moral foundations), he wrote that
“If the German workers would ever find a leader capable of guiding them, it cannot be predicted what could happen to the Jews.”
But all this changed with the Second Vatican Council, when it was discovered that the chosen people had never been an enemy of the Catholic Church, and those who earlier thought otherwise were wrong. In turn, and through a sequence of documented and extraordinary developments, the road was open, for the brethren at large, to the teachings, for example, of Wilhelm Reich, philosophical guru and proponent, among other things, of sexual liberation, feminism, transgenderism, homosexuality, sexualization of children and, literally, pedophilia. Reich was the spiritual father of the 1960s’ culture and of the 1968’s upheavals, along with the Frankfurt School of Cultural Marxism.
As an example of relatively recent Judaic influence on Catholicism, Eric Ericcson (whose real name is Eric Samuelson) was invited, by the eminently Catholic University of Notre Dame, to apply Freud’s theories to determining whether seminarists could be “psychologically mature” if they did not have sex, etc. In a scale of one to ten, someone who did not have sex would remain at level six. There is no need to expand on the consequences of this teaching on a religion that requires celibacy from its priests. And the matter should help to frame, at least in part, some of the grossest recent scandals of the Catholic Church.
Or take Cohn-Bendit, guru of the Green Party in Europe. Among other things, the Greens founded ‘sexually liberated’ children’s schools. In his memoirs, Cohn-Bendit relates how on arrival at one such school, one child unzipped his zipper and started fondling him.
In essence and skipping many steps, the devilish pact went as follows, “We (Deep State), give you (Christians or people of Christian upbringing) sexual liberation, the most disgusting pornography among pornographies, the most disgusting movies and entertainment and a seal of Freudian approval to degeneracy. In exchange, you will make the world safe for capitalism – where economy is but the metaphysics of the rich. And you will equally bless the perverse evolution of the social function into a function solely aimed at economic profitability.
Which also helps explain, at least in gross terms, why the “Left” all over Europe – including the heirs of socialist ideologies – has essentially abandoned claims to social justice, while embracing the tenets of the so-called “New Left.” That is, out with the social and in with the capital and the fostering of neo-liberal, neo-conservative Zionist objectives.
Talk about coincidentia oppositorum (coincidence of the opposites) – neo-liberals and neo-conservatives united in a harmonious coalescence of objectives.
But what is the link between this set of affairs and events like the so-called “Scripal” crisis with its attendant, vitriolic hatred of Russia? The informed reader may already know the answer. I repeat it here only to give consistency to the historical link.
Somewhat arbitrarily, it begins with the “Pale of Settlement” of Tzarina Catherine the Great, when members of the sect were eventually confined to the Western part of the Russian Empire. Soljenitsin, in his “Two Hundred Years Together,” explains at length why this measure had become necessary and inevitable.
That hatred was suspended during the Bolshevik stage of the Russian Revolution and its aftermath – when, coincidentally, the Judaic presence was predominant in the Soviet executive cadres. Then, as the latter-day Stalin changed his views, and even more after his death, even Soviet Russia discovered that it could not deny or reject its history, traditions, core values and the Christian-Orthodox religion.
The slow but palpable revival of traditions and religion coincided with the equally palpable revival of Judaic discontent, causing mass emigration to Israel and the US. Later, the externally engineered destruction of the Soviet Union led, in turn, to a revival of Judaic hopes and actual plunder, accompanied by the well documented, almost apocalyptic collapse of the Russian social and economic order. And we know what happened afterwards.
In the end, the hatred of Russia can be considered as added evidence of frustrated (but not abandoned) Judaic objectives. For, to quote Rahm Emanuel, major of Chicago and a bigwig in the Obama administration, “Do not let a good crisis go to waste.”
We know that the modern state is an engine of propaganda, producing crises so as to declare itself as the only instrument capable of resolving them. The Scripal crisis fits that mode of operation.
It may be a coincidence, but while the Scripal saga was developing and more sanctions were applied to Russia, there has been a renewed and apparently successful effort to expand the definition of so-called “anti-Semitism,” as applied to language, discourse, suspect words and implied criticism. With a view to turning free-speech into a crime and free-speech crime into punishment.
Emblematic, among the recently persecuted, are the 90 year-old German Ursula Haverbach, jailed for her opinions on the “Holocaust,” and the British housewife turned song-writer, Alison Chabloz, guilty of posting online satirical songs on sundry Judaic claims related to WW2.
Perhaps, most of what written above could be condensed into a quotation, attributed to Voltaire and well known to many Internauts. Namely, that to determine who rules over us, we should find whom we are prompted to hate (and why), and who we are not allowed to criticize.
On the other hand, history lends itself to unlimited analyses. ‘Analysis’ means to ‘unloose,’ and figuratively, to resolve a complex structure into its components. But the components of history are infinite and any selection must be inevitably reductive.
Still, if the past is recalled by narration, and the future anticipated by vision, I attempted a narration, let the reader provide the vision. Keeping in mind that, after all is said and done, hope is still the best comfort to our imperfect condition.
References:
… dust of time (Coriolanus)
… gulf of blind forgetfulness… (King Richard III
… indifferent children of the earth (Hamlet)
… all this the world well knows… (Sonner 129)
Image Location: shorturl.at/cvCH5