Archive for February, 2017

The Zionist-Christian Alliance and the Great Deception
By Kevin Barrett on February 8, 2017
“O you who know in your hearts, do not take the [Jews and Christians] as friends…”  (5:51)   With those words, Shaykh Imran Hosein explains, the Qur’an warns us against the psychotic heresy known as “Judeo-Christianity” — the prime force behind the Zionist invasion, occupation, and genocidal destruction of the Holy Land. The Satanic “unholy book” of “Judeo-Christianity” is the Scofield Bible, commissioned by the Rothschilds, published by Oxford University Press, and attributed to a two-bit swindler who could barely scratch his name in mud with a stick. Tens of millions of Americans belong to this satanic cult. Some of them are currently very close to Trump, and have their sulfurous fingers around the nuclear trigger. So please read the article below by Tony Smario, and don’t say we didn’t warn you. –Kevin Barrett, Veterans Today Editor
by Tony Smario 
    There is a war starting, but it’s not one of the wars we are being told about. The plans for this war may be a hundred years old or more, and they provide the path by which the “Great Work” of returning humankind to its Golden Age may be achieved. This is World War Three, the Apocalypse, Armageddon. And it promises to come on the heels of rebuilding Solomon’s Temple in Jerusalem.
Observation #1 – A Strange Alliance
There is something remarkable, and telling, in the fanatical unity of the Judeo-Christian alignment over the past hundred years. Remarkable, because these two religions have no way to reconcile their theological differences: one waits for a future “messiah”; one blames the other for killing the “messiah” more than 2,000 years ago. The two make an all the more unexpected pair considering the Christians were originally persecuted by the Jews, whose holy writings in the Talmud reject Jesus as a bastard who is boiling in hot excrement for eternity, whereas Christianity went on to persecute the Jews mercilessly for killing their messiah, while warning everyone that if you don’t believe in Jesus you’re going to hell forever. What’s telling, then, is that Western Christianity is so committed to Zionism that it undertakes extraordinary political and social machinations to preserve the union. In the seventh century, the two were united by the loss, to Islam, of the “holy land,” which they both held sacred, and by the loss of the city at the center of their religious history. Today, they are united by ancient prophecies about the arrival of the messiah, the end of the age, and the kingdom to come.
That land and city were mandated to “Christians” more than a hundred years ago in the Sykes-Picot Agreement of 1915, which put modern-day Syria and Lebanon under French jurisdiction, with Iraq and Palestine under British jurisdiction. England disregarded the agreement it had made with Hashemite king Faisal I of Iraq (1883–1933) to support him in establishing a Muslim caliphate in that land (i.e., Iraq, Syria, Lebanon, Palestine, and Saudi Arabia) after asking the Hashemites to help the British defeat the Ottomans in World War One, which they did. Instead of a caliphate, the Muslims were eventually divided into puppet governments like those that exist today and, at that time, faced the birth of “radical Islam” in the newly created Kingdom of Saud, founded and supported by the same British government that had just double-crossed the Hashemites. It is worth observing that the current Hashemite king (of Jordan) has made it clear that he expects England to make good on its word to help establish a Hashemite caliphate on that land, and ISIS is not what he envisions.
While Britain and France were dividing up the Middle East and screwing the Hashemites, in 1917 British foreign secretary Arthur James Balfour declared in a letter to Walter Rothschild, a leader of the British Jewish community, that England intended to help establish a Jewish homeland on the piece of land called Palestine. The Jewish holocaust had not yet occurred, but this empire that had subdued the world for Christianity declared that it wanted to give the “holy land” to future generations of Jews in order to help them perpetuate their rejection of Jesus as the messiah and enable them to await the true messiah in their renewed homeland. Who thought this was such a good idea in Christian England in 1917, and why? Who would pay for the creation of Israel? I will attempt to put the answers to these questions in perspective in the following observations about where all the money and political pressure to create the State of Isreal came from, and continues to come from, and to what end.
History records that thirty years after the Balfour Declaration, in the wake of the atrocities of World War Two, a new organization called the United Nations established the State of Israel in Palestine, the immediate result being war with its Muslim neighbors, who had been living side by side with Jews for a millennium until the sudden, hostile occupation of their land. The wars continued for thirty years, and then an international “peace process” was begun that continues to this day. The peace process has resulted in the death of untold millions, the demise of stable governments, and the near destruction of the region and much of the culture. It is easily observed that the entire pretense for the current wars in the Middle East, and for the continuing threat of “terrorism,” is based on lies and underwritten by Zionist-Christian money.
    The final point in this first observation is that the Muslims of that land, as well as orthodox Muslims everywhere in all corners of the globe, still on the losing end of this hundred-year-old agreement by the Hashemites to help the British defeat the Ottomans, are the ONLY other people on the planet, besides Christians, who believe Jesus is the true messiah of the Jews, and they are currently awaiting His return in fulfillment of their scriptures. Keep that in mind.
Observation #2 – Follow the Money
Why did Walter Rothschild want a Jewish homeland in Palestine in 1917, why did England pledge its support in the Balfour Declaration, and what kind of support did England provide? A couple years earlier, England was in a bad spot in the war with Germany, and it seemed as though the English would lose their country. Rothschild had promised to get the United States involved on the side of the British IF England gave Palestine to Rothschild. History has recorded, though journalism rarely does, that the financing FOR Germany in World War One was also supplied by Rothschild’s banking cartel. The Rothschilds would go on to own 80 percent of the land comprising the State of Israel three decades later, according to some records.
The Rothschilds’ financial exploits and methods are well documented, including loaning money to both sides of a conflict or funding a war to drive one side to compliance, as in the War of 1812. The French Revolution, in 1789, was the coming-out party of this mode of financial terrorism, which was destined to rule the world from then til now. In this second observation, we notice where the money was flowing a hundred years ago, when the United States was brought into World War One, so unpopular with its citizens, and instigated under methods of intrigue and propaganda familiar to every military conflict since.
In 1913, after a hundred-year struggle against an obstinately aware Congress, the Federal Reserve banking system was formerly institutionalized in the United States, with no doubt regarding the system’s origins and benefactors. In 1914 Archduke Franz Ferdinand of Austria was assassinated, prompting European powers to go to war, including Russia, with Rothschild money supplying both sides of the conflict. In 1915 the Lusitania was sunk, the event designed to drag America into the war that the Rothschilds had promised England the United States would enter. Also in 1915 the Sykes-Picot Agreement was signed, dividing the Muslim Middle East into French and English mandates, financed by the Bank of England, which was owned by the Rothschilds, and forcing the British to double-cross the Hashemites regarding their caliphate and Muslim self-determination on that land. In 1917 the Balfour Declaration was sent to Lord Rothschild in recognition of England’s intent to “support” the establishment of a Jewish homeland. This was shortly after political Zionism began in response to “anti-Semitism,” which itself arrived mysteriously in history without precedent in 1894 in France in what is known as the Dreyfus Affair and unexpectedly in Russia, Poland, and Bulgaria at the end of the nineteenth century as well. Lord Rothschild happened to be president of the British Zionist Federation at the time of the Balfour Declaration.
Something else happened in 1917 that was clearly financed by the same Rothschild money responsible for the Federal Reserve system in America and that was behind the intention to establish a Jewish homeland in Palestine: the Bolshevik Revolution in Russia. Why did Zionist Rothschild want the czar replaced, and why with “communists”? Of all the possible answers to that question, the one central to this second observation is the one least recognized or understood in popular culture. The RESULT of the communist revolution was the unending genocide of one particular type of people for nearly a century: orthodox Christians. It was Christian Russia that sought the ancient orthodox Christian land of what is today called Turkey, and its strategic city of Constantinople, during World War One. Christian Russia might have stood against Rothschild’s Zionism. The Rothschild-funded Bolshevik Revolution made sure that wouldn’t happen. And it did something else in preparation for the future war that the third observation makes clearer: it set Christians up as future enemies of Islam, when Western Christianity became one with the Zionists, who require ever more weaponry, pointed at their Arab neighbors, for “security.”
I will finish this second observation by noting that the Rothschilds’ agents drafted the terms of the treaty with Germany after World War One and that those terms were designed to provide the conditions for World War Two. The Rothschilds’ money also funded Morgan, Rockefeller, Herriman, Carnegie, Ford, and like industrialists, through Jacob Schiff, who in turn supplied Hitler with the money, and technology, to fight the war and to create slave labor camps, which benefited the industrialists. But why did Zionist Rothschild want slave labor camps in Germany for Jews and a war with the Allies? War had already proven grossly profitable, but were the wars intended only to provoke nations to borrow in order to fight them? Or could a war be planned to do more than sell debt?
    In 1811 when the American Congress had voted to throw the Rothschild-funded banks out of the country, Nathan Rothschild famously said, “Either the application for renewal of the charter is granted, or the United States will find itself in a most disastrous war.” That war began the following year in response to the obstinate refusal of the American Congress to renew the Rothschilds’ bank charter.
Until the terms of the Versailles Treaty created the conditions for World War Two, the country where Jews enjoyed the most peaceful and integrated existence anywhere in Europe was Germany. The Zionist plan from at least 1901 was to establish a Jewish homeland in Palestine, but Palestine was full of Palestinian Arabs, not Jews. Europe was full of Jews living happily and safely. The question was how to get the Jews to WANT to leave Europe and immigrate to a new and strange land. We know the answer as “World War Two,” and it was funded by the same people who gave us the Federal Reserve system in America, political Zionism, the Jewish homeland, the Bolshevik Revolution, and Nazi Germany, not to mention the Cultural Revolution in China. After World War Two, Rothschild money was behind the establishment of the United Nations in 1945, as it had been behind the League of Nations decades earlier. Shortly afterward, in 1948, the United Nations created the State of Israel, and the so-called “Judeo-Christian alliance” was inseparably forged. Meanwhile, the same Rothschild money was funding the “radicalization” of Islam. What have the Zionist-Christian elite got in mind for the future?
Observation #3 – The Hegelian Dialectic
In 1769 Mayer Amschel Rothschild “became a court agent for Prince William IX of Hesse-Kassel, who was the grandson of George II of England, a cousin to George III, a nephew of the King of Denmark, and a brother-in-law to the King of Sweden.”[1] Mayer Amschel Rothschild’s creation of the Illuminati via Adam Weishaupt in Bavaria in 1776, on the heels of Rothschild’s association with Prince William IX, points to a more profound web of control over future events than the whims of one man or one family, particularly given reports of the Illuminati’s agenda:
    The purpose of the Illuminati is to divide the goyim (all non-Jews) through political, economic, social, and religious means. The opposing sides were to be armed and incidents were to be provided in order for them to: fight amongst themselves; destroy national governments; destroy religious institutions; and eventually destroy each other.”[2]
The aim was to divide and conquer by infiltrating the religions and every other spectrum of humanity. The plan was, over time, to arm each side with ideals that were hostile to one another and to promote violent confrontation, including the ever-advancing weaponry needed to achieve the most offensive violations of moral conduct and the most ruthless and efficient taking of life. The media were to be used to pit one side against the other and to program humanity to accept war as an eventuality and “religions” as the cause. “Terrorists” were to be created and fought. All of this was a classic application of what has become known as the “Hegelian dialectic.” Meanwhile, any number of depopulation and eugenic programs have been administered under the cover of “humanitarianism,” and the average citizen is helpless, hopeless, ignorant, and impotent to interfere.
Our current state of affairs fits the strategy supposedly outlined by General Albert Pike in 1871, which called for three world wars to achieve world dominance. Recall the power that had been wielded sixty years before Pike provided his strategy when England was forced into a war with the obstinate United States over renewing the Rothschilds’ bank charter. And observe the statue of General Pike just blocks from the Capitol building In Washington, the only confederate general so honored. The accuracy of Pike’s “predictions” regarding the first two world wars demands attention to the third. The control displayed in the past hundred years over media, politics, education, medicine, justice, and the weather indicates that popular narratives are highly subject to propaganda and manipulation. Observe also the slogan of the State of Israel’s secret service, Mossad – “By Deception We Shall Rule and Do War” – and ask yourself what deception has gone on over the past sixty-five years during a constant state of war in Palestine. Terrorizing the Arabs while creating and blaming Arabs for ongoing acts of “terrorism” is an observable possibility.
    The great deception is this: the Zionists intend to use religious prophecy to dominate the world by reclaiming the “promised land,” by rebuilding Solomon’s Temple, by REPLACING the messiah according to a perverted interpretation of Jewish scripture called the Talmud, and by ensuring their perpetual reign forever through superior military force. What remains in the way of Pike’s strategy of 1871? Only the remnants of orthodox religion, namely Christians, Muslims, AND orthodox Jews. Each of these groups has pointed out the Zionist lie from the beginning and was undoubtedly targeted during World War Two, as orthodox Christians have been continuously targeted for a hundred years.
The desire to eliminate orthodox Jews explains Britain’s “white paper” of 1939, in which it suddenly withdrew its support conveyed in the Balfour Declaration by prohibiting European Jews from immigrating to Palestine until AFTER World War Two and the Jewish holocaust had largely fulfilled the task of eradicating a certain population of Jews, most likely those with Semitic connections to Palestine, and instilling the rest with fear of “anti-Semitism.” Only then did Britain facilitate their return to Palestine in order to repopulate it with “Jews” seeking a homeland, then a state, and eventually a temple, all paid for by American “Christian” industrialists, originally reimbursed by the Nazi slave labor camps they knowingly funded.
Lastly, observe how the United Nations, formed in 1945 on the basis of ELIMINATING armed conflict, has managed instead to mold a modern world where the largest market is weapons, the largest industry is war, and the ONLY way conflicts are settled is through advanced weaponry and superior military alliances. For what reason has a Zionist-Christian alignment created this reality if not to ensure the (new world) order that its overseers plan to create from the ashes of chaos?
    Despite being obscured by a sea of distractions, the end game has only three observable goals, on which all action is focused: a centrally controlled and universal electronic monetary system, a far less populated “new world” upon which to impose “order,” and a final temple in Jerusalem from which to rule the world forever.
Therefore, on the one hand, if I’m funding “radical Islam” with Zionist-Christian money, if I’m building Zionist-Christian weapons to bring the world peace and security but I’m not giving them to certain Arabs, and if I’m planning to rebuild Solomon’s Temple in Jerusalem and to rule the world forever, then all I have to do is create an excuse for the Zionists to kill certain Arabs, while making a “peace deal” with the other Arabs (which I will later break), a deal that includes my new temple on their hill. And since Muslims themselves also expect a final “great war,” the decimation of Islam, and the emergence of their true “Mahdi” at the time of the return of the true messiah of the Jews, who they regard as Jesus of Nazareth, it is imaginable that Muslims will be easily led into colluding in their own demise.
On the other hand, if I want to start a war that kills all the Zionists and Christians, I need another enemy, one that I will have to provide with sufficient weapons for it to be able to do just that. Among this enemy, I will have to introduce, foster, and fund every anti-Christian-Zionist ideal so that when the peace deal over the temple is broken, someone can be drawn into a war over it. I’m thinking of Russia, China, and their friend Iran, joined by a host of others. By that time, the excuse for world war may not be the new temple in Jerusalem and the Zionist-Christian fight with Islam but economic existence in the new world. It is not hard to observe the future financial conflict being set up and the eerie possibility of a complete collapse of the money system, as anticipated by ancient prophecy … but that’s a different story.
Tony Smario has decades of experience interpreting eschatology with a unique voice. You can find him at the channel on YouTube, where he provides weekly commentary on geopolitical events and a nontraditional Bible study demonstrating the false understandings of modern Christianity.

The World today – a brief review.

Still on the Same Path to Armageddon?

 Paul Atwood On February 1, 2017
    As long as nuclear weapons exist there is a danger that someday they will be used either as a result  of accident or technical failure or of evil intent of man, an insane person or a terrorist.
    — Mikhail Gorbachev
Scientists tell us that the dinosaurs became extinct 65 million years ago when a comet or asteroid struck that so geologically rocked the planet that earthquakes, volcanoes, fires and subsequent climate change destroyed the ecological basis for much of life on earth. The concept of “nuclear winter” derives from what must have been an enormous blanket of ash and dust that enveloped the atmosphere, cut off solar radiation, and dropped temperatures extremely.  Yet the dinosaurs did not create the conditions for their own extinction. That was as the saying goes “an act of God.” Because it is so terrifying no one likes to imagine that nuclear war is possible. We humans think of ourselves as the only intelligent species on earth so how could we be so stupid as to snuff ourselves? Yet, despite the forewarning of Hiroshima and Nagasaki we continue on the path to self-extermination. The very existence of nuclear weapons is like leaving a loaded gun in a day care center. Sooner or later…..
William Perry served as Secretary of Defense under Clinton. He spent most of his career in that “Defense” establishment or the arms industry. As such an insider he knows as much about the means and methods of Armageddon as anyone. His book My Journey at the Nuclear Brink entreats us to take seriously that “the danger of some sort of nuclear catastrophe is greater than it was during the Cold War and most people are blissfully unaware of this danger.” It is worth noting that he was the only member of Clinton’s cabinet who opposed NATO’s incorporation of Poland, Hungary, the Czech Republic because that measure would betray the progress made in nuclear weapons reduction and gravely alarm Russia.
The great sociologist C. Wright Mills once warned that World War III will be caused by our preparations for it, and we are doing exactly that, moving ever closer to the abyss. Today the U.S. has over 800 military bases spanning the globe, a deployment of arms far more extensive than any in human history. Four hundred of them are ranged between Alaska and Australia well within reach of China. Meanwhile Russia and China are called “existential threats” yet have no military bases anywhere near our own territory.
As he leaves office President Obama has authorized the largest buildup of American troops and heavy armor in Germany, Poland and Norway since the Cold War was claimed to have ended in the 1990s. The Pentagon and all the perryjourneyintelligence agencies are blinking red in their insistence that Russia poses a dire threat to our national security. A recent poll indicates that a majority of Americans are buying this unremitting indoctrination and see Russia in exactly this light.
As of Trump’s inauguration relations between the United States and Russia are at their lowest point since the mid-1980s when tensions were dreadfully high and the two nations glowered at each other across an economic and ideological divide with 30,000 nuclear weapons ready for launch on each side. Trump has floated the intention to ease sanctions on Russia in exchange for substantial reductions in nuclear weapons, one of his very few proposals that should be taken with the outmost seriousness. Deplorably none of his national security state appointees appear to agree.
Thirty years ago the rationality of Gorbachev’s perestroika and glasnost intervened against the madness of that day and was matched also by Reagan’s conversion to sanity at least on the danger of nuclear war. Both sides signed the Intermediate Range Nuclear Forces Treaty in 1987 as a first step toward further reductions. Later, as the Soviet Union dissolved, the first Bush promised that the NATO alliance would not take advantage of Russia’s new weakness and move to incorporate former Warsaw Pact nations and Soviet republics. That promise was soon broken by the Clinton Administration and Bush II. Meanwhile, Boris Yeltsin’s regime, which had been assisted to power by American intervention, invited western capital and “free market” economists in to restructure the Russian economy along capitalist lines and this led to the plunder of Russian wealth and its organized flight into the hands of gangsters and western banks. In turn this led a severe reaction and return to repressive state rule under Putin, who, while certainly an authoritarian, is no Stalin.
Recently, Washington aided the overthrow of the elected, if corrupt, government of Ukraine in order to tear that country away from Russian influence. Today Ukraine’s current government is equally corrupt but now in ways that are approved by western bankers and politicians. The re-annexation of the Crimea, composed predominantly of ethnic Russians, was Russia’s measure to prevent Ukraine from allowing a NATO naval base on the Black Sea. Try to imagine a scenario in which the U.S. would allow Cuba to enable Russia to take over the naval base at Guantanamo. Too few Americans remember how close we came to Armageddon when Russians were on our doorstep. But we think it reasonable to be on theirs?
NATO has incorporated former Soviet republics and satellites and stationed nuclear weapons and anti-ballistic missiles virtually on the Russian border. In all the demonization of Putin that we have heard ad nauseum only journalists and analysts outside the corporate media have been willing to acknowledge that Russia sees all this as profoundly threatening and that the steps it is taking are perceived among Russian citizens as defensive and necessary to their national security.
How many Americans know that the United States dispatched troops to Russia in 1918 in order, with other western powers and Japan, to strangle the Bolshevik Revolution? If Russian forces had ever been inside U.S. territory killing Americans every American would learn this on the first day of the first grade! And what was the motivation for this intervention? It was hardly concern that the Bolsheviks were violent or “un-democratic.” No, the reason was that a successful Russian Revolution was going to tear that vast country out of the Western capitalist system which had just begun to penetrate the resources, markets and cheap labor of what we would today call today a “third world” country. In other words vast profits were at stake.
Whatever one thinks of the Russians it is imperative to understand that they have legitimate security interests that the U.S. has been threatening since the end of the de facto U.S.-Soviet alliance of WWII to defeat Nazi Germany. Our propaganda insists that the Soviets occupied Eastern Europe illegitimately after that victory. If that is so then the U.S. occupied Western Europe illegitimately. Unbeknownst to most the cold hard fact is that most of the eastern European governments allied with Nazi Germany and aided the invasion of the USSR. Keep in mind the savagery the Nazis, and their Czech and Hungarian allies and others, inflicted on the Soviet Union. Deaths there numbered between 25 and 30 million, and a comparable toll had been visited on Russia only a generation earlier during WWI. The U.S. has endured nothing remotely like this since the Civil War of the mid-19th Century. There is no doubt that in the post war the Russians in turn brutalized many peoples of the region who resisted their rule and the U.S. has always insisted that it opposed the Soviets because of that maltreatment and American desire to promote “freedom and democracy.” But that hypocrisy stands naked in the face of the millions of human beings Washington has killed directly as in Korea, Indochina, Iraq and Afghanistan, and by proxy in Libya and Syria and many other places across the globe. U.S. support for numerous vicious dictatorships throughout the Cold War and continuing today absolutely proves the lie to any genuine concern about democracy and freedom.
In a constant drumbeat we are told that our deeply threatening actions toward Russia are vital and beneficial to our national security? Our establishment media parrot the claims of the neo-cons and hawks in the military and intelligence agencies and continue to propagandize the public with fundamentally crackpot and gravely dangerous misinformation. Well informed critics of U.S. policies and actions are banned from the press and airwaves. The truth is that Russia is far weaker than the U.S. economically and militarily, with the glaring exception of its nuclear arsenal which it developed in fear after Moscow witnessed the U.S. vaporize two Japanese cities in 1945. Those weapons are the only true threat to our national security and Russia, unlike the U.S., has declared it would not be first to use nuclear weapons. So why do our so-called leaders continue to ratchet up perilous tension?
Throughout the last century Russia’s policies have always been defensive and Russia has never shown any inclination to move West except during WWII to defeat the Nazis and their Eastern European allies. Yet in today’s climate we hear statements from military figures that Russia must be confronted and that a war with Russia can be won. Meanwhile in the last year  Obama, who at the outset of his presidency vowed to work to abolish nukes, set a 1 Trillion dollar upgrade to the U.S. nuclear triad. Do we think that Russia ignores such bellicose and confrontational actions? Numerous analysts like Perry are deeply worried that we are approaching a state of friction and mistrust that can spin catastrophically out of control.
Meanwhile on the other side of the planet Obama’s “pivot to Asia” plays out. According to published accounts sixty percent of U.S. air and naval forces are earmarked for the Western Pacific. The pivot is intended to ensure that China does not establish economic and military preponderance in East Asia. That is one reason the Trans Pacific Partnership was formulated. Keep in mind that a principal cause of war with Japan was its “Greater East Asia Co-Prosperity Sphere,” a vast area from which American commerce and capital investment was excluded (that was very much the same trouble Washington had with Germany and, for that matter, the USSR). China has declared that its Exclusive Economic Zone, which, like our own, extends for 200 nautical miles, prohibits the naval maneuvers that the U.S. provocatively is conducting. In response China is creating new islands and installing defensive weapons.  China’s foreign ministry asks that if what China is doing is considered militarization by the U.S. “Then what is the sailing of fleets into the South China Sea?” Trump’s Secretary of State designate, oil baron Rex Tillerson, stated in his confirmation hearing that China should not be allowed to occupy these islands! Now Trump concurs. Oh? By what means does he intend to prevent this?
How many know that during the Korean War General Douglas MacArthur openly declared his desire to nuke China? That is why he was fired. Needless to say the Chinese understand that he was not the only high ranking member of the American ruling elite who wished to carry out his yen. After the war he said “I would have dropped between thirty and fifty atomic bombs…and spread behind us-from the Sea of Japan to the Yellow Sea- a belt of radioactive cobalt.” It was not long before China developed its own nukes.
Last year the Council on Foreign Relations issued a study that declared that “preserving U.S. primacy in the global system ought to remain the central objective of U.S. grand strategy.” The problem for the grand strategists is that China is a part of this system only to the extent it serves Chinese interests. Meanwhile, the Rand Corporation and the U.S. Army have developed plans entitled War With China: Thinking Through the Unthinkable. Need I belabor what is meant by “unthinkable?”
American culture and education about both World Wars teaches that each was caused by aggressive and unwarranted acts against us. This doctrinal interpretation is dangerously superficial. Most never get a glimmer of the deeper roots which were primarily economic though ideology played its role. Let me emphasize here that in neither of the world wars was American national security at stake if by that we mean safety from direct military attack on the nation and from invasion. No other country then or now has had the capacity for that. Indeed, if any nation tried to invade the National Rifle Association alone would dispatch the threat swiftly.
Most Americans believe that the attack by the Japanese on Pearl Harbor was the cause of American entry into the global war already in progress. That attack was merely the spark. The publisher of the New York Times, Arthur Sulzberger wrote in 1941 that “We did not go to war because we were attacked at Pearl Harbor. I hold rather that we were attacked at Pearl Harbor because we had gone to war.” What did he mean? And if he was correct why had we gone to war?
The U.S. had been at odds with Japan ever since it began to imitate the West by militarily occupying China and Korea as colonies at the turn of the 20th Century. In 1853 the U.S. Navy had “opened” Japan by threat of force, leading Japan to overhaul its entire political and military structure to meet the threat of the West on its own terms and to act as Europeans and Americans were doing: to protect itself by becoming militarized and annexationist in the same manner as the West. By 1900 the U.S. had seized Hawaii for its naval base at Pearl Harbor, acquired the Philippines and Guam and Cuba and Puerto Rico by force and began to intervene militarily throughout the Caribbean, Mexico and Central America, what Henry Stimson, Secretary of State and War liked to call “our little region over here.” For American financial and political plutocrats that was the problem. The region was too small.  Asia was up for grabs.
By 1900 the U.S. looked to the “Great China Market” as a necessary outlet and market for American overproduction of goods and agricultural commodities that regularly spawned economic depression in the states. But so did Japan and other imperial powers. That is why the U.S. issued its Open Door Policy, still the bedrock of American foreign policy. As benign and boring as it sounds the policy insists that vital resources, markets and labor power should be open to American capital investment anywhere on planet earth and on American terms. Thus, any nation that thwarts this policy will be viewed, if not as an outright enemy, then as an adversary or rival to be defeated by whatever means necessary.
As early as 1905 the U.S. Navy formulated War Plan Orange for potential war with Japan, and Pearl Harbor was the pivot of strategy. Military planners knew then that Japan knew of these plans and knew also that if war ensued Pearl Harbor would be the primary target. When Japan annexed Manchuria, China’s northern province, in 1932 and later declared a “Monroe Doctrine for Asia” in imitation of U.S. domination of the Western Hemisphere, and in clear defiance of the Open Door, war was effectively set in motion. As Japanese troops moved into greater China and then into French IndoChina the U.S. demanded their withdrawal and imposed severe embargoes on exports of oil and steel critical to Japan’s economy. As Secretary of War Henry Stimson put it in his diary “The question was how we should maneuver them into firing the first shot without allowing too much danger to ourselves.” Washington authorized American Army pilots secretly to fly combat missions for China, in violation of supposed neutrality, which, of course the Japanese knew. The issue had nothing to do with Japanese atrocities and cruelties. How else had Britain, France, Russia and the U.S. behaved toward their conquered peoples?  The challenge was who would get to control the vital resources, markets and cheap labor of China.
As tensions mounted Washington then issued an ultimatum to Japan to withdraw completely from China. The U.S. had given Japan the classical “Hobson’s choice”: either give in to American demands or go to war. Under no circumstances would Japan’s military accept such terms and humiliation. And Washington knew it.
Few American citizens know this but in 1946 Congress learned that the FDR administration knew that Japan had decided for war because the U.S. had cracked Japanese diplomatic codes and knew that Japan had decided on war. High tech monitoring devices of the day, radio direction finders, tracked the Japanese navy on a course due east toward the only target that made sense militarily if Japan was to have the merest chance against the overwhelming U.S. advantages: the base where the bulk of the U.S. Pacific Fleet lay at anchor. The commanders in Hawaii were told nothing of this. On the night before December 7 FDR read the latest Japanese code decryption and said simply “This means war.” When the attack came Secretary Stimson wrote “When the news first came that Japan had attacked us my first feeling was of relief that the indecision was over and that a crisis had come that would unite all our people.”
In history’s inevitable irony, however, the U.S. defeated Japan in this ferocious contest only to lose China to the Chinese. Of course, they were the wrong Chinese, the communists, who would ensure that the U.S. would never access China’s riches on its terms. That is the essence of Washington and Wall Street’s problem today. China now is powerful and can establish its own terms. While China still calls itself “communist” in fact it practices capitalism and competes with the U.S. agenda far more efficiently than ever. That is the real issue.
Of even greater importance in the lead-up to WWII the U.S. conducted the bulk of its commerce in Europe. Nazi Germany clearly intended to control the resources of Central and Eastern Europe and to do so by autarky i.e. by imposing a self-contained system closed to outside economic penetration. The American public was propagandized to believe that either Germany or Japan would invade the U.S. but elites knew that wasn’t the threat.
The Hollywood “documentary,” Why We Fight, even employed trick photography to depict Japanese troops marching down Constitution Avenue in D.C. But under no circumstances could either Japan or Germany accomplish an invasion. Nor did they have the remotest plans to do so. Navy Secretary Josephus Daniels stated that “I can scarcely believe that it would be possible for any man to be crazy enough to invade this hemisphere.” Admiral William Standley, ambassador to the USSR, affirmed that Japan had no power to threaten the continental mainland. The New York Times wrote that “No air power now assembled is capable of bringing that kind of power against the United States.” The Magazine of Wall Street declared that if “Hitler cannot cross the English Channel, how can he cross the Atlantic Ocean?”
The real issue was the “Nightmare of a Closed World.” With Germany sealing much of Europe to outside economic activity and Japan doing the same in East Asia the American economy, already in depression, would have to settle for trade and profit only in the Western hemisphere or be restructured more along social democratic lines as had already been done via the New Deal, or even by totalitarian means.  Secretary of the Treasury Henry Morgenthau worried that “the Germans would form an overall trading corporation and what are we going to do about our cotton and wheat?” Bernard Baruch, a major lord of Wall Street, emphasized “Germany does not have to conquer us in a military sense. By enslaving her own labor she can place in the markets of the world products at a price with which we cannot compete. This will destroy our standards of living…” Thomas Lamont, a Morgan partner, echoed the same concern, “Under a Hitler victory (in Europe) we should find ourselves in the midst of a country-wide depression so deep and so prolonged as to make the last ten years look like a happy and bountiful time.” Breckinridge Long of the State Department worried that,” If Germany wins this war and subordinates Europe every commercial order will be routed to Berlin…rather than in the United States.”
Let me be clear. I am happy that the Nazi regime was defeated but we must not delude ourselves that our government went to war to stamp out Nazi evil for then we would also have to explain why that same government recruited that same evil to enhance our own intelligence agencies, and our military weapons programs? People like Werner von Braun, Reinhard Gehlen and Klaus Barbie were only some of the war criminals who went to work for our military-industrial complex and helped to foster military dictatorships in Latin America but should have faced the same justice that was meted out to others at Nuremberg.
At the end of World War II the U. S. establishment was determined not to fail at what had been attempted after the First World War i.e. the restructuring of the global economic and political order along lines that served the bedrock of American economic interests and policies. International finance was reorganized along the lines of the American central banking system in order to tie the capitalist economies into a seamless web: hence the World Bank and International Monetary Fund. Given that most of the developed world now lay in ruins the American elite believed the time had come for American dominance. Even before U.S. entry into the war Henry Luce, the influential publisher of Life, Time and Fortune magazines, had spelled out the basic contour for what he called The American Century in the post war world.
And the cure (for past failures in foreign policy) is this: to accept wholeheartedly our duty and our opportunity as the most powerful and vital nation in the world and in consequence to exert upon the world the full impact of our influence, for such purposes as we see fit and by such means as we see fit.(emphasis added)
American politicians place much consequence on American “exceptionalism” and exalt our supposed commitment to key core values and principles like democracy and self- determination for all peoples. In their mouths these are mere platitudes intended for children. History clearly shows that these tenets are honored mainly in their breach. The real agenda is one of American supremacy and dominance of the global order. The real convictions of those who claim to speak for us ring clear. Here is what George F. Kennan, who headed the State Department’s Policy Planning Staff said in 1948 in words long hidden from the public because they were classified “top secret.”
We have 50% of the world’s resources but only 6.3% of the world’s population…we should cease to talk about vague and unreal objectives such as human rights, the raising of the living standards, and democratization. The day is not far off when we are going to have to deal in straight power concepts. The less we are then hampered by idealistic slogans, the better.
Are 50% of the world’s resources miraculously located inside the United States? The reality is that we control such wealth by virtue of our armed forces, our control of international finance and our proxy regimes. Thus we Americans enjoy our bloated, wasteful, self-indulgent, and narcissistic way of life at the expense of half the world.
Kennan’s were the words of an American supremacist, of one who believes in the superiority of the United States and its “right” to set the global agenda. Though Kennan later woke up to the critical danger of nuclear war, American supremacy remains the mindset of most of the power elite. No nation that ever sought to dominate its world ever succeeded and none ever will. It is a fool’s errand. Supremacy is always resisted. Given the myriad of grave problems caused by humans ourselves, most critically nuclear weapons, global warming, climate change, and environmental destruction, the human species needs more than ever to perceive the thin line that separates us from extinction.
American citizens are duly apprehensive about many problems in these unprecedented times. If we do not grasp the paramount danger of all-out war, and prevent the desolation sure to follow, all the others will be moot.
Adapted from remarks at the Community Church of Boston, January 29, 2017.

​Democracy in Exile and the Curse of Totalitarianism

 Henry Giroux

With his white supremacist ideology and racist contempt for Muslims on full display, President Trump has issued an executive order banning all Syrians and people from seven predominantly Muslim nations from entering the United States. In doing so, he has not only made visible, and without apology, his embrace of the frenzied lawlessness of authoritarianism, he has also put into place an additional series of repressive policies for the creation of what might be called a democracy in exile.
In response to the religious ban targeting Muslims and Syrian refugees escaping a devastating war, carnage, and state violence, thousands of people across the country have mobilized with great speed and energy to reject not just a possibly unconstitutional ban, but also what this and other regressive policies herald as a possible model for the future. Many writers have focused on the massive disruption this shoot-from-the hip piece of legislation has and will produce for students, visa holders, and those entering the United States after finishing a long vetting process.
As an editorial in the Washington Post pointed out, Trump’s immigration order is “breathtaking in scope and inflammatory in tone.”[1] Moreover, it lacks logic and speaks to “the president’s callousness and indifference to history, to America’s deepest lessons about its own values.”[2]  Given that it was issued on Holocaust Remembrance day points not only to Trump’s moral callousness, if not outright ignorance,  but also to the power of chief White House strategist, Steve Bannon, a white-supremacist and anti-Semite, who played a key role in drafting it.
Not only will this immigration order further threaten the security of the United States given its demagogic design and rhetoric of exclusion by serving as a powerful recruiting tool for terrorists, it also legitimates a form of state sponsored racial and religious cleansing. Chicago Cardinal Blasé Cupich, hardly a radical, was right in stating that the design and implementation of the order was “rushed, chaotic, cruel, and oblivious” to the demands and actualities of national security, but that it had “ushered in a dark moment in U.S. history.”[3] Dark, indeed, because the impetus behind the ruling signals not only a society that has stopped questioning itself, but also points to its immersion into a mode of totalitarianism in which a form of social engineering is once again being constructed around an assault on religious and racial identities. What we are witnessing under Trump and his chief ideologues is a purification ritual motivated by xenophobia and the attempt to create a white public sphere free of those who do not share the ideology of white Christian extremists.
Trump’s immigration order is meant to carve out a space for the dictates of white supremacists, a space in which those considered flawed—racially and religiously defective- will be subject to terminal exclusion and exile. This war on the Other is part of a larger obsession which combines a purification ritual with the heightened, if not hysterical, demands of the national security state. Under Trump’s regime of hatred, the cruelty and misery of massive exploitation associated with neoliberal capitalism merges with a spectacle of exclusion and a politics of disposability that echoes those totalitarian regimes of the 1930s that gave birth to the unimaginable horrors and intolerable acts of mass violence.[4] Racial cleansing based on generalized notions of identity echo the sordid principles of earlier policies of extermination that we saw in the past. This is not to suggests that Trump’s immigration policies have risen to that standard of violence as much as to suggest that it contains elements of a past totalitarianism that “heralds as a possible model for the future.”[5] What I am arguing is that this form of radical exclusion based on the denigration of Islam as a closed and timeless culture marks a terrifying entry into a political experience that suggest that older elements of totalitarianism are crystallizing into new forms.
Democracy, at least as an ideal, may be under siege, but the forces of resistance are mobilizing around a kind of wakefulness in which civic courage and the ethical imagination are being realized through mass demonstrations in which individuals are putting their bodies on the line, refusing Trump’s machinery of racist exclusion and white supremacy. Airports are being occupied, people are demonstrating in the streets of major cities, and liberal and progressive politicians are speaking out against the emerging neo-fascism. Democracy may be in exile but the spirit that animates it is far from defeated.
The metaphor of a democracy in exile provides a rhetorical space where a kind of double consciousness can be cultivated that points beyond the structures of domination and repression to what the poet Claudia Rankine calls a new understanding of community, politics, and engaged, collective resistance in which a radical notion of the social contract is revived as a kind of burning resistance in which individuals and groups allow themselves to be flawed together in solidarity with their brothers and sisters who are being marked as flawed because of their religion, race, and country of origins. She writes:
    You want to belong, you want to be here. In interactions with others you’re constantly waiting to see that they recognize that you’re a human being. That they can feel your heartbeat and you can feel theirs. And that together you will live—you will live together. The truce is that. You forgive all of these moments because you’re constantly waiting for the moment when you will be seen. As an equal. As just another person. As another first person. There’s a letting go that comes with it. I don’t know about forgiving, but it’s an “I’m still here.” And it’s not just because I have nowhere else to go. It’s because I believe in the possibility. I believe in the possibility of another way of being. Let’s make other kinds of mistakes; let’s be flawed differently.[6]
To be “flawed differently” works against the poisonous legacies and totalizing totalitarian strictures of racial purity that are still with us, and rejects the toxic reach of a government dominated by morally repulsive authoritarians with their legions of conservative lawyers, think tanks, pundits, and intellectual thugs. Being “flawed differently” means we bleed into each other, flawed in our rejection of certainty, and racial cleansing.  Flawed differently we revel in our diversity, united by a never ending search for a just society. As such we join in solidarity and opposition in our differences mediated by a respect for the common good. But also share in our  resistance to a demagogue and his coterie of reactionaries who harbor a rapacious desire for concentrating power in the hands of a financial elite and the economic, political, and religious fundamentalists who slavishly beg for recognition and the crumbs of power.  Being “flawed differently” means mobilizing against the suffocating circles of certainty that define the ideologies, world views, and policies that are driving the new authoritarianism, expressed so clearly by chief White House strategist, Steve Bannon, who unapologetically and with an echo of Nazi Brownshirt bravado, told the press to shut up and be quiet.  Being “flawed differently” provides a rhetorical signpost for creating new democratic public spheres, noisy conversations, and alternative spaces informed by compassion and a respect for the other.
Now is the time to refuse to normalize one of the most dangerous governments ever to emerge in the United States, and to talk back, occupy the streets, push back, and never forget that today it might be Muslims who are under attack but tomorrow the authoritarian fanatics will come for the dissenting journalists, intellectuals, and for anyone else who falls under the ever expanding category and rubric of the dangerous “other.” Fear and terror are totalizing in Trump’s appropriation of these tools and aim to be all-embracing. Under such circumstances, a fierce and courageous resistance is the only option, that is, a necessity forged with an unshakable militancy for economic, political, and social justice.  This must be a form of collective resistance that is not episodic but systemic, ongoing, loud, noisy, educative, and disruptive. The words of Frederick Douglass ring especially true under the reign of Trump: “If there is no struggle, there is no progress. …This struggle may be a moral one; or it may be a physical one; or it may be both moral and physical; but it must be a struggle. Power concedes nothing without a demand. It never did and it never will.”[7]
There is no choice but to stop this machinery of death from functioning and it has to be brought to an end in every space, landscape, and institution in which it tries to shut down the foundations of fragile democracy.  Reason and thoughtfulness have to awake from the narcotizing effects produced by a culture of spectacles, consumerism, militarism, and the celebration of unchecked self-interests. The body of democracy is fragile and the wounds now being inflicted upon it are alarming. What might it mean, then, to imagine a landscape of resistance in which the metaphor of democracy in exile inspires and energizes young people, educators, workers, artists, and others to engage in political and pedagogical forms of resistance that is disruptive, transformative, and emancipatory?  What might it mean to create multiple protective spaces of resistance that would allow us to think critically, ask troubling questions, take risks, transgress established norms and fill the spaces of everyday life with ongoing acts of non-violent resistance? What might it mean to create entire cities defined as sanctuaries for a democracy in exile? What might it take to create modes of coordinated resistance that challenge this new and terrifying horizon of authoritarianism that has overshadowed the ideals of a radical democracy?
Under such circumstances, it is crucial to confront such dark times with a fierce insurgency fueled by the capacity to  imagine a more just and democratic future, one that  can only emerge through a powerful and uncompromising collective struggle. As Hannah Arendt once predicted, totalitarianism’s curse is upon us once again and it has emerged in forms unique to the tyranny of the times in which we live. Trump has brought the terrors of the past into full view, feeding off the fears, uncertainties, and narratives that make so called “others” superfluous. Under such circumstances, not only does politics get emptied out of any viable meaning, but the vanishing of democracy is matched by the disappearance of those considered disposable. In the face of this all-encompassing zone of ethical and social abandonment and the acceleration of a machinery of civil and social death, the American public must create a new language for politics, resistance, and hope. This must be a language that refuses to normalize the present and challenges the racialized war culture that Trump is legitimating.
A democracy in exile is not a prescription or rationale for cynicism, nor is it a retreat from one’s role as an informed and engaged citizen. On the contrary, it is a space of energized hope where the realities of neo-fascism along with its racist, morally obscene, and politically death-dealing practices can be revealed, analyzed, challenged, and destroyed. The United States now occupies an historical moment in which there will be overwhelming acceleration of violence, oppression, lawlessness, and corruption. These are truly frightening times that must be confronted if a radical democratic future is not to be cancelled out.