In this Duran article, Seraphim Hanisch writes: […] many Palestinians may see a light of hope in rhetoric from Congresswomen Tlaib and Omar. And to be sure, sometimes what they say is very accurate. To give these two ladies credit, especially Ilhan Omar, never has the nature of what is going on in Israel with regard to Palestine been as baldly exposed as it has in her fiery comments. Nevertheless – and this is likely to be very aggravating for pro-Palestinian folks – these two women are probably the worst possible choices to idolize and support with regards to this situation. […] The narratives and established opinions by great powers is set in place and it is too strong to beat in the way that has been attempted for over fifty years. Israel cries victim at the drop of a hat, and the most powerful nation in the world is in their pocket, so they will win every time they are attacked. That is not going to change as long as the image of the Palestinian people is that of a bunch of zealots and terrorists. Even with the liberal press often more supportive of Palestinian oppression, there is no effect on the image problem of suicide bombings and rocket attacks that appear largely unprovoked and pure manifestations of Palestinian rage. There has to be a different path. […] So far, the Palestinian response to various aspects of that [Kushner] plan have not done their cause any credit – the news is that they flatly refused to even look at it. This is not negotiating from a position of strength for the Palestinians because of their surrounding reputation for violence. This makes them look untrustworthy. […] fifty-plus years points to the fact that nothing has changed as it was done before, and history shows that nonviolent opposition to a tyrannical power defeats the tyrannical power. The man who developed this strategy, Moandas K. Gandhi said that it is a provocative fight, and one that will hurt.
My comment:First, I want to point out that the Palestinian side has every right to regard the Kushner plan with disdain. Many analysts, including Israeli commentators, have deemed it [based on the draft] as not serious and more like a bribe, than an actual peace deal. Second, I agree with Mr. Hanisch that the two women are definitely not real Muslims, given their ‘new age’ values. I also agree that Tlaib and Omar aren’t the best advocates for the Palestinian cause; but my reasons for believing that are based on the national view as opposed to the globalist way of doing business and on geopolitics, rather than religious animosities between Christians, Muslims, and Jews – which are secondary impediments in my opinion. You can’t campaign in the USA against borders and immigration rules, while at the same time supporting the creation of a Palestinian state, with its own borders and immigration laws.
Furthermore, Saudi Arabia is a major agent of influence in the whole equation. Mahmoud Abbas [after Turkey shared the recording of Khashoggi’s murder by the Crown Prince’s goons to Germany, France, Britain, and the United States] was quick to publicly express his enduring fealty to the house of Saud. And, as regular readers of the Duran know, Saudi Arabia and Israel have a good track record of cooperation, especially in recent times. Saudi Arabia doesn’t grant citizenship to Palestinian immigrants living on its territory – the only nationality to be discriminated against in this fashion under Saudi law. Hamas’ support to Daesh shouldn’t be neglected either. Ironically, later on, ISIS ended up accusing Hamas of being a tool of the Israelis – when the group didn’t retaliate militarily after Washington recognized Jerusalem as Israel’s capital. I think it’s safe to say that they’re useful idiots. Talk about disunity among the Arab peoples… Let’s remember Israel’s role in creating the opposition it now loathes. It helped to spawn Hamas, in order to counter the secular PLO. The religious zealots in both Israel and the occupied territories feed off one another – and are unable to sell their agenda to the public otherwise, or if they are, with much greater difficulty.
Lastly, a two state solution isn’t economically-viable; it would render Palestine a de facto vassal of Israel in terms of access to real resources. The only solution that makes economic sense is a one state solution: a multi ethnic, multi racial, secular state called Israel-Palestine, with a strong written constitution to protect the public from the excesses of any political party or coalition that might come to power. As for taxes, there should be a site value tax to replace taxation on labor, buildings, sales and enterprise; and community land trusts should be established. By decommodifying land – treating it as the Natural Commons – giving everyone access to land and providing affordable housing, ethnic and religious tensions can be greatly mitigated. A Westphalian approach is required for this to work – forgiving and forgetting all the bad blood – and a national system of political economy needs to be implemented to ensure that this new [wiped] slate remains unsullied. Without a minimum degree of civic nationalism, no nation can survive. Without this basic, fundamental glue – a country fractures into tribes, and cults, and enclaves, and it fractures violently. I can’t help but feel Tlaib and Omar are making the US Israel First policy and Palestinian issue part of the usual political soccer game between Democrats and Republicans – a PR game that Trump and his camp are bound to win based on perception alone; while the Palestinian case sadly and unfairly ends up linked with the ‘loony left.’ And, of course, the left itself uses shaming tactics and virtue signalling against ideological opponents, like David Duke, whenever their views happen to coincide and they do on the situation of Palestinians living under Israeli-imposed Apartheid.
RT CrossTalk host Peter Lavelle and The Duran’s Alex Christoforou discuss the Dayton, Ohio shooting in which nine people and the suspect were killed, and the El Paso, Texas Walmart shooting where 22 people were killed before the gunman was taken alive.
My comment: Peter Lavelle mentioned the ID propaganda spewed on Netflix, saying that all the men depicted in those movies are either weaklings, cowards, morons, or psychopaths. I personally don’t watch Netflix and have stopped watching mainstream movies a long while ago; but am well aware of the cultural and political propaganda these productions contain. Lavelle touched on the economic situation and on the issue of young men who find themselves in a position of involuntary celibacy; and that most women simply won’t marry men who make less money than they do. Single parent families were invoked as well, the absence of the father in children’s lives. The argument is made that things like porn, social media, and video games cannot fill the void created by the absence of family and faith. I wholly concur, and no sane human could object to that in my opinion. As far as mass shootings are concerned… there was only one mass shooting in the 1960s, ditto for the 1970s. And back then, racist political forces were part of the mainstream. The guns were always there. What changed?
In a recent article, Addiction, Polygamy, and Neofeudalism, I tried to tackle the larger phenomenon of socio-economic and spiritual decay, but failed short in doing so. Sadly, my longer articles don’t do nearly as well as my shorter ones. In another recent piece, I expose blatant anti-heterosexual propaganda in an NBC article from 2018.
Nearly a quarter of surveyed millennials claim they don’t have any friends. In order to even begin to understand the situation we’re facing today, it’s important to have a look at history. People may be familiar with dystopian novels like Huxley’s Brave New World  or We by Evgheni Zamiatin … But I show the reader the broad scheme for mass social engineering, the effects of which we’re living today, published in the year 1915. The following is not fiction, it’s a precise statement of political action.
“The historical mission of our world revolution is to rearrange a new culture of humanity to replace the previous social system. This conversion and reorganization of global society requires two essential steps, firstly the destruction of the old established order, secondly, the design and imposition of the new order, the first stage requires elimination of all frontier borders, nationhood and culture, public policy, ethical barriers and social definitions. Only then, the destroyed old system elements can be replaced by the imposed system elements of our new order.
The first task of our world revolution is destruction. All social strata and social formations created by traditional society must be annihilated. Individual men and women must be uprooted from their ancestral environment, torn out of their native milieus, no tradition of any type shall be permitted to remain as sacrosanct. Traditional social norms must also be viewed only as a disease to be eradicated. The ruling dictum of the new order is, nothing is good so everything must be criticized and abolished. Everything that was must be gone.
The forces preserving traditional society are “free market capitalism” in the social economic realm, and “democracy” in the mental political realm. The capitalist free market does not fight against the old economic order, nor does democracy lead a fierce hot battle against the forces of reaction which oppose the new order, therefore our transformative work will be imposed through the unifying principle of the militaristic spirit, the negative task of destroying the old established order will be completely solved and finished only when all the human masses are all forcibly collectivized as uniformed soldiers under imposed mass-conformity of new order culturing.
After destruction of the old order, construction of the new order is a larger and more difficult task…..We will have torn out the old limbs from their ancient roots in deep layers, social norms will be lying disorganized and anarchic so they must be blocked against new cultural forms and social categories naturally re-emerging. The general masses will have been first persuaded to join as equals in the first task of destroying their own traditional society and economic culture, but then the new order must be forcibly established through people again being divided and differentiated only in accordance with the new pyramidal hierarchical system of our imposed global monolithic new world order.” From the book/Manifesto, Der Geist des Militarismus, Stuttgart 1915, by Nahum Goldmann [a leading Zionist and founder of the World Jewish Congress]. From the English translation housed in the collection of the Leo Baeck Institute, p.37 – 38.
The neo-Marxist currents we see today, ever entrenching themselves in public and private institutions, increasingly curating our language, shaming and slandering anyone who dares to take a different point of view, has mutated in such a fashion to become perfectly compatible with capitalism, even though they profess to hate it.
I’ll give two examples of individuals [famous in their own professions], just to point out the destructive nature of this ideology. My examples are adult film star Nina Hartley and economist Murray Rothbard. Both are Jews and come from communist families. Nina Hartley’s been an ardent supporter of the porn industry. While she stated that she wants everyone to have a piece of the [economic] pie, Hartley’s career has nothing to do with class struggle, but everything to do with spreading hedonism to all – a sexual revolution – not to empower the proletariat, but to distract it, and inevitably, demoralize it. Many icons of the counter-culture were in fact agents of the Deep State [CIA & other organizations], or useful idiots in their employ. Hartley is no exception. And just to point out her vain materialism and faux sympathy for class struggle, I recall some of her posts on Twitter, back when I had a presence on that dismal echo chamber. A woman, a porn actress, tweeted that her boyfriend had asked her to be exclusive with him, so she dumped him without a second thought and was quite proud of it. To that tweet, Nina Hartley replied something along the lines of, ‘Did he pledge to take care of you financially in exchange of you dropping your career? I don’t think so.’ Interesting emphasis put on “career” by a leftist; the “career” of sleeping with other men for money, as if no other profession is available for women or ex-porn actors. Evidently, the so-called socialist Nina Hartley had asked a rhetorical question. Her mind was made up from the start.
Now let’s go to Murray Rothbard. He too came from a Jewish, communist family. He grew up among communist friends and neighbors too. But unlike them, Murray chose anarcho-capitalism. Rothbard’s particular brand of radical libertarianism is all about rentier markets [neo-serfdom] and the individual’s right to choose freely [more illusion of choice]. An ironic thing is that Rothbard defended price monopoly, so long as the monopolist in question was a private agent and got in that position via fair competition. A short, concise take down of this particular view of his is found here. Rothbard was funded by the [pro-open borders, pro-usury, pro-rent-seeking] Koch brothers, until he had a falling out with them over ideological lines. The Kochs made their fortune in the USSR, fulfilling contracts for Stalin, then used that money to fund the libertarian ideology in the USA, and later the Tea Party movement.
Is this what communist families produce? Are Hartley and Rothbard the norm, or the exception? I would say they’re the exception, because if we look at the actual policies of the communist republics, the State made it its mission to protect and promote the traditional family, condemned and combated hedonistic ideas and activities, ensured housing, jobs, health care, and education for all: men and women. Indeed, when the internationalist fervor died down, the national communists affirmed themselves. Romania’s Gheorghe Gheorghiu Dej famously put it to the Soviets that first and foremost, he was Romanian, and a communist second. The idea of the nation wasn’t sacrificed in favor of Globalization – quite the opposite, the nation state was resurrected and civic nationalism [as opposed to cosmopolitanism] was promoted. Romanian political dissident, Octavian Paler, in his old age, though a strong believer in misanthropy, didn’t fail to criticize Romania’s socio-economic and moral scene after ’89; and he didn’t fail to acknowledge the good things in the pre ’89 epoch.
To put it simply, without order, without purpose, life is a chore to live. Spiritual rot ultimately leads to emptiness, alienation, the destruction of the self, of the family, of the community… Some may criticize me for bemoaning the slow, but steady social implosion of the United States of America. After all, in its role of hegemon, is the biggest purveyor of terrorism. Yet, I can’t bring myself to wish a pox on other nations. I have friends in the US, and even if I didn’t, it would still be wrong to wish evil on others.
I’m an adept of the great Erasmus [de Rotterdam]. Back in 1995, Donald Phau wrote a superb article on him, “the educator’s educator.” The Platonic Christian outlook of Erasmus was reflected in northern Europe by the work of the Brotherhood of the Common Life, and later by the Oratorian Order. The Brotherhood, founded in the 14th century by Gerhard Groote, was dedicated to mass education, including the poor, and from an early age. Their teaching method encouraged their students to study the original writings and discoveries of the ancient Greeks. Instead of employing formalisms to be learned by rote, children were encouraged to replicate the actual creative thinking of the original authors. Erasmus carried forth the Brotherhood’s method in his writings throughout his life.
The printing and mass circulation of Erasmus’ books led to an unprecedented leap in literacy throughout Europe. In addition, he collaborated with leading intellectuals in England and Spain to revolutionize teaching methods, by developing a school curriculum which remains to this day a foundation for education. In the area of statecraft, Erasmus was in personal contact with most of the monarchs of Europe and called on them to emulate Plato’s “philosopher king.” At the same time, his works addressed the wider population on the issue of national sovereignty. Erasmus foresaw the necessity for an educated population to freely elect its own government. Lastly, he was in the forefront of a movement to reform the institution of the Catholic Church, to end its corruption and toleration of superstition. And when Venetian interests pitted Luther’s Reformation and the Church against each other with the goal to destroy the legacy of the Renaissance, Erasmus, virtually alone, fought for a reconciliation based on a Platonic Christian dialogue.
Since Alex Christoforou and Peter Lavelle were talking about the alienation of young men, the erosion of faith and family [the main pillars of a well-functioning society], I feel the next paragraphs from Donald Phau are seminal to remedy the problem.
A letter to a young teacher, written in 1516, shows Erasmus’ commitment to lift Europe’s 95 percent out of ignorance. The teacher, Johann Witz, had written to Erasmus that he was considering quitting the profession and moving instead to a higher paying and more influential position, perhaps at court. Erasmus replied the following…
“To be a school master is an office second in importance to a King. Do you think it a mean task to take your fellow-citizens in their earliest years, to instill into them from the beginning sound learning and Christ himself, and return them to your country as so many honorable upright men? Fools may think this is a humble office; in reality, it is very splendid. […] No one does more for it [one’s country] than the man who shapes its unformed young people, provided he himself is learned and honorable – and you are both, so equally that I do not know in which of them you surpass yourself. […] An upright man who is above all temptation is what that office needed, a man devoted to his duties even if he is paid nothing.”
Author William Wertz describes the teaching at one of the Brotherhood schools, as designed by Groote: “Imitating Christ themselves, the teachers […] preferred loving warnings to harsh punishments, sought to inculcate a love for individual research by letting pupils delve among the classics rather than confine themselves to text books, and taught the boys the use of their vernacular language. Poor pupils were given money for books, ink, and paper they needed in school. […] The basic idea is that the way to self-improvement is to think about an appropriate saying which helps one to overcome whatever obstacle to creative thinking arises in one’s mind at the moment it occurs.”
Gottfried Leibniz, one of history’s great polymaths, in a paper called Society & Economy from 1671, envisioned that artisans will work together happily in the large work rooms, singing and conversing, except for those whose work requires more concentration. On the question of education, Leibniz wished for children to be taken care of by Society. Parents shall be relieved of the task of educating their own children: All children… shall be rigorously brought up by women in public facilities. And scrupulous attention will be paid that they do not become overcrowded, are kept clean, and that no diseases arise.Note Leibniz’s desire for women to be part of, what Erasmus considered, the most important function in society, second only to that of the monarch.
Most of the work will be done in the morning. Pains will be taken to provide for pleasures other than drinking – for example, discussions of their craft and the telling of all sorts of funny stories, whereby they must be provided with something to quench their thirst, such as acida. There is no greater pleasure for a thoughtful man, or indeed for any man once he becomes accustomed, than being in a company where pleasant and useful things are being discussed; and thus every group, including the artisans, should have someone to write down any useful remarks that may be made. But the Society’s highest rule shall be to foster true love and trustfulness among its members, and not to express anything irritating, scornful, or insulting to others. Indeed, even rulers should eschew all insults unless nothing else is effective, since such behavior precludes the establishment of trust. No man shall be derided for a mistake, even if it be a serious one; rather, he should be gently admonished in a brotherly way, and at the same time, immediately and appropriately punished. Punishment shall consist in increased and heavier work, such as making a master work like a journeyman, or a journeyman like an apprentice.
My own philosophy is a mixture of what I discovered in my quest for knowledge throughout the years. I’m a Westphalian National Socialist and Georgist. By national socialism, I don’t mean Nazism / Hitlerism, but a philosophy completely divorced, purged of racist, supremacist ideology and imperialistic ambitions. One might also call it Christian Socialism, or Cooperative Individualism. The State has a fundamental role to look after the security and welfare of its citizens. Georgism is the philosophy that Land forms the Natural Commons, is not a commodity, and it should be taxed instead of labor, buildings, sales, and enterprise. And the Westphalian philosophy refers to a sisterhood of sovereign nation states, in which past transgressions and enmities are forgotten and forgiven in perpetuity, and each works for the benefit and dignity of the other: no nation prospers at the expense of another’s injury.
As economist and historian Michael Hudson points out, “To understand the crucifixion of Jesus is to understand it was his punishment for his economic views [crucifixion being a punishment reserved especially for political dissidents]. He was a threat to the creditors [rent-seekers and usurers].” Evangelical Christians are pro-war Zionists, pro-usury, pro-rent-seeking, and their loathsome, heretical ways don’t and cannot offer the meaning and structure craved by today’s demoralized masses. If religion cares not for the poor, it is useless and unable to steer Mankind toward a future worthy of pursuit. Without a holistic approach to one’s life, family, faith, community, and parent nation, the Great Adversary [an expression I use to anthropomorphize the forces of socio-economic and spiritual decay] will have permanent dominion upon this earth.
The Duran’s Alex Christoforou and Editor-in-Chief Alexander Mercouris discuss the economic and political divorce unfolding between the US and China. President Trump announced last week he would add 10 percent tariffs on $300 billion of Chinese goods starting on September 1st. The move covers all goods the US buys from China. In response, Beijing allowed its currency, the yuan, to weaken to more than 7 per 1 USD, a level many analysts considered important. Trump called the slide in the Chinese yuan “a major violation.” For the first time in 15 years, the US Treasury Department proceeded to name China a currency manipulator.
My comment: Alexander Mercouris is right on the benefits inherent to mutually assured deterrence. I believe the divorce between the two super-powers is inevitable as well. And just to be clear, even though the process kicked off under Trump’s term, it was taught out well before he took office. That’s why US trade sanctions and military escalation have bipartisan support; and why pro-peace voices are labeled as “Putin stooges.” I’m also disappointed by the Chinese… they continue to put the exports sector ahead of domestic consumption. What’s the point in another devaluation of the yuan vs the USD? You retain your chunk of the US market. For what purpose? All dollars owned by the Chinese as checking and saving accounts at the US central bank are at risk, given the geopolitical situation between the two. It’s high time China recycled some of its trade surpluses in other countries, to the benefit of foreign exporters and their own citizens.
With regard to the European Union. I’m highly skeptical of any major divergence from Washington’s dictates. Western Europe is US military occupied territory. The US can strangle Europe in more ways than one – and its propaganda outlets are stronger than ever. National intelligence services of EU member states are in the USA’s pockets. A military switch of allegiance would result in economic warfare, sabotage, and widespread unrest. Regardless of who’s in the right or wrong, those who control the propaganda machine control the narrative. And unless there’s a massive economic crisis, no significant geopolitical shift will occur. The unipolar moment is gone; and new alliances are shaping the world…
Libya has become a country of the West’s experimentation of new military technologies and recycling of old weapons. Itself a crime against humanity. Armed drones, armoured vehicles and pick-up trucks fitted with heavy armaments machine guns, recoilless rifles, mortar and rocket launchers have been recently transferred to Libya by unscrupulous foreign countries with their own selfish interests being their uppermost consideration. […]
The security vacuum created by the conflict in and around Tripoli continues to be exploited by Da’esh in remote areas in the country’s southern and central regions. […]
To search for a consensus Libyan candidate that would be acceptable to both Haftar and Serraj. Rumours abound in Libya that such an acceptable third ‘candidate’ to all sides in the conflict is known. Such third way is being spoken of in both Tripoli and Tobruk as well as London, Washington and Moscow..and, according to some sources, the person stands ready in waiting.
Read the full article by Richard Galustian on the Duran website.
RT CrossTalk host Peter Lavelle and The Duran’s Alex Christoforou discuss the ANTIFA terrorist who was killed Saturday by Washington state police as he attacked a local Immigration and Customs Enforcement detention center. He was seen in a recent CNN program that critics say glorified a radical, left-wing movement. Willem Van Spronsen, 69, sent a manifesto to friends the day before the assault in which he wrote, “I am Antifa,” and now he has now been ‘martyred’ by ANTIFA members, while CNN aired and promoted a program that glorified the radical ANTIFA member. Van Spronsen appears to have been part of a May 5 episode of CNN’s “United Shades of America” with W. Kamau Bell.
My comment: What we’re seeing with contemporary liberalism and the so-called progressives is a consequence of decades-long efforts by the Western Establishment to erode working class politics, working class conscience, and effectively demoralize the vast majority of the population.
The secret services [via proxies] spent trillions of dollars across the decades, during and after the Cold War, to fragment the Left and any inclusive narrative that puts class and class issues above anything else. Under the mass insanity of ID politics, a woman “of color” that’s rich is ‘more oppressed’ than a white person that’s poor; and the former individual, of course, cannot be privileged. Indeed, this ideology of insanity insists that only whites are capable of racism, while “people of color” aren’t and cannot be. Dialog and debate are seen as heresy. It is not only immoral, according to their beliefs, to “give a platform” to someone who expresses divergent views, but dangerous too. So shaming, censorship, and [inevitably] violence are seen as lawful and justifiable methods to achieve the “proud social justice warrior’s” goals. Again, I encourage readers to pick up The Cultural Cold War, by Frances Stonor Saunders.
Below is a review by M. A. Krul to entice potential readers:
“Most people are probably aware that the CIA sponsored a lot of activities, legal and extralegal, in the war against the Communist bloc known as the Cold War. But it is perhaps less well-known to what extent the CIA was involved in sponsoring, bribing and suborning writers, musicians, actors and intellectuals to agitate against the Soviet Union and its allies, as well as communism and Marxism in general. In particular the CIA-run organization “Congress for Cultural Freedom” and its flagship intellectual journal ‘Encounter’ had a great influence in the West in terms of effective propagandizing for the US point of view.
Frances Stonor Saunders, an independent film producer and writer for the New Statesman, has now produced an authoritative modern history of the CIA and the Congress, as well as related organizations, focusing both on the global political dimension. She focuses on the global politics, but also on the individuals involved on all sides, the many prominent writers and intellectuals in the organizations, and what it looked like from the CIA’s perspective, for which she makes use of newly declassified documents. She shows convincingly that the “non-Communist Left” was by and large bribed or cajoled by the CIA, in so far as they didn’t enthusiastically volunteer, into joining their propaganda front. She also shows that later denials by people such as Stephen Spender and Melvin Lasky of their knowledge of CIA involvement is extremely unrealistic and most likely just another lie.
That is not to say that this work is a polemic; far from it, Saunders writes very matter-of-factly and evenhandedly, and has little interest in discussing the merits of various political positions, though she does not fail to comment on the context of the Cold War at times, when she contrasts high-minded phrasery with the rather brutal and cynical realities of Vietnam, CIA activity in Latin America, the Soviet purges, the repression of Hungary, etc. The book is very extensive, making use of various sorts of sources, including interviews with important participants, in which they reflect remarkably often in a rather cynical way on their past activities. It’s quite astounding how many famous writers, composers, intellectuals [George Orwell, Arthur Schlesinger Jr, Gloria Steinem, Jean-Paul Sartre], from Nabokov’s cousin to Stravinsky and from Russell to Stuart Hampshire, were involved in organized campaigns to attack and discredit their socialist colleagues.For that alone, this book is worth reading, that these crimes are not forgotten.“
And to not forget, let’s compare what it meant to be politically progressive back in the 19th and early 20th centuries compared to the ‘sex, drugs, and rock’n roll’ period, up to the present.
The white working class was the cornerstone, the key part of the solution for a better tomorrow, and was indeed heavily responsible for obtaining the right to vote, the welfare state, public services, full employment, and civil rights. Nowadays, the so-called liberals and progressives hate working class whites with such a passion, they wish they didn’t exist.