Thursday, January 26, 2006

Comments on Justin Raimondo

In my humble opinion,’s justin raimondo is one of the leading, radical, political commentators in the english speaking world – alongside the christisons, stephen j. sniegoski, noel ignatieff, jeffrey blankfort, israel shamir, and even, on occasions, uri avnery. This is not to imply he is a great political theorist or a great political philosopher – so far at least, there are simply too many major political issues about which he has said nothing. The reason for such praise is that he is amongst the few commentators to expose the seriousness of the zionist threat to america. He never shirks from pointing out neocon misdeeds in the same way as john pilger, robert fisk, or juan cole. My only reservations about his political commentary is that he is not anti-zionist enough.

The following commentaries on raimondo’s articles are in reverse chronological order – latest first.

What??!?? The Bushies opposed to attacking Iran?!
First Published January 25th 2006
Updated January 26th 2006
Raimondo rightly believes the jewish owned american media, the jewish lobby in america, and the jews-only state in palestine, are trying to push the united states into another proxy zionist war in the middle east. "The Israelis are now engaging in a bit of blustering, hinting broadly that they are ready to nip Iran's nuclear program in the bud by conducting a raid similar to that carried out at Osirak, Iraq, in 1981, when Israeli warplanes bombed Saddam's nascent nuclear facility. That probably isn't going to happen in this case, however, for two reasons: (1) The geographical spread of the various suspected nuclear sites prevents any attempt to knock them out in a single blow, or even several blows, and (2) Instead of fighting their own battles, the Israelis would much rather use the U.S. to do their dirty work, whenever possible – and that seems highly possible given their past success in this area." (Justin Raimondo ‘Spy With a Heart of Gold?’ January 25, 2006).

The jews-only state doesn’t need to attack iran if it believes it can get the americans to do it for them, and suffer the consequences, as happened with the invasion of iraq. Whilst the bushies seem to have been preparing to follow their jewish masters’ demands to attack iran, raimondo rather surprisingly believes they are holding out. "When it comes to Iran, though, their (israelis) strategy is just beginning to be put into practice – and is running up against a major roadblock in the reluctance of the Bushies to climb on board." (Justin Raimondo ‘Spy With a Heart of Gold?’ January 25, 2006). Indeed he argues the american host is about to expel its zionist parasites, "When a parasite invades, it hides as long as it can, sucking the vital juices and draining the energy of its host. Yet there is a limit to what the host can tolerate: eventually, it either builds up an immunity to the depredations of its "guest," or it is sucked dry and exhausted to the point of near-death. Having used up nearly all available military and economic resources in Iraq, the U.S. has a choice: it can either build up an immunity to Israeli influence, even a partial one, or it can let itself be turned into a dry husk, a casualty of Tel Aviv's ambitions." (Justin Raimondo ‘Spy With a Heart of Gold?’ January 25, 2006).

According to buchanan, bush has either got to attack iran or he’s got to rebuff the jewish owned american media, the jewish lobby in america, and the jews-only state in palestine. In other words, bush has either got to obey his jewish masters’ commands or suffer the consequences of disobedience. However, there is not the slightest evidence that the bushies have been doing anything other than serving their jewish masters, "George Bush yesterday committed the US to the defence of Israel against threats from Iran, saying he would not allow the world to be "blackmailed" by an Iranian nuclear weapon. "I am deeply concerned about Iran, as should a lot of people be concerned about Iran. I am concerned when the country of Iran's president announces his desire to see that Israel gets destroyed," Mr Bush said, referring to Mahmoud Ahmadinejad's threat to "wipe Israel off the map". He added: "Israel's our ally. We're committed to the safety of Israel, and it's a commitment we will keep. Secondly, I'm concerned about a nontransparent society's desire to develop a nuclear weapon. The world cannot be put in a position where we can be blackmailed by a nuclear weapon. I believe it is very important for the Iranian government to hear loud and clear from not only the United States, but also from other nations around the world."" (Julian Borger ‘Bush commits US to defence of Israel in face of Iran threat’,,1693450,00.html January 24, 2006).

Ok, let’s pretend the bushies suddenly decide not to attack iran but to take on their jewish masters. What are the likely consequences? Firstly, the jewish lobby in america will do its best to bring about the election of hilary clinton as next president of the united states of israel since she’s agreed to do the jews’ dirty work for them. "In short, if Bush does not confront Iran on the nuclear issue with sanctions or air strikes, he may find himself confronted by Israelis and their U.S. auxiliaries. Hearken to Hillary Clinton: "I don't believe you face threats like Iran and North Korea by outsourcing it to others and standing on the sidelines. But let's be clear about the threat we face now: A nuclear Iran is a danger to Israel, to its neighbors and beyond." Hillary is saying that if George Bush does not confront Iran, he is open to the charge of leaving Israel to face a nuclear attack by a regime that has threatened to wipe Israel off the map. Political hardball." (Quoted in Patrick J Buchanan ‘Bush's Dilemma: Iran vs. Israel’ January 25, 2006). In this scenario the attack on iran will take place in three, four, five years time. But given that the iranians are unlikely to develop a nuclear weapon within the next decade then a long delay to any attack is not a significant drawback.

Secondly, if the bush administration decides not to attack iran, then the jews-only state will have to resort to ‘Plan B’ and do so itself. It will do so because it knows that if it attacks iran and iran retaliates against either the jews-only state or american forces in the middle east then this will invariably drag america into the war that bush supposedly didn’t want. The jews have got the americans over a barrel.

Buchanan argues, "If America does not strike, Mofaz is saying, Israel will. Yet, as that could produce the same results as an American attack, without the same assurance of success, Bush may have to restrain Israel, if he does not want a wider war." (Patrick J Buchanan ‘Bush's Dilemma: Iran vs. Israel’ January 25, 2006). But what are the bushies going to do to stop the jews-only state from entangling america in a war against iran? What happens when the freebie jets that the bush administration recently gave to the jews-only state to enable it to bomb iran, start flying over american occupied iraq on their way to iran? Is bush going to order the american military to shoot down these american made warplanes to prevent them from reaching iran??? Or is he going to pretend he can’t see them and hope the iranians won’t retaliate against either the jews-only state or america thereby propelling america into what will be the third proxy zionist war in the middle east? What is going to happen if the jews-only state tries to use one of its submarines in the arabian sea to launch a nuclear cruise missile attack on iranian targets? Is george going to order his navy to sink the sub before it fires? Once iran retaliates against america or the jews-only state then there will be no chance for america to restrain the jews-only state, and america will rapidly get sucked into the conflict.

The jews-only state in palestine has been using its nuclear weapons to blackmail the united states into supporting the jews-only state since 1973 when it forced the nixon administration to send over military hardware to defeat the advancing arab armies – even though the result of this american intervention was an arab oil embargo that pushed america and the rest of the world into a decade long recession. In 1990, the jews-only state once again used it nuclear weapons to blackmail the bush senior administration into turning against its strong ally, saddam hussein, to eject iraq from kuwait. This was america’s first proxy zionist war. In 2003 the israelis forced the americans into a second proxy zionist war, this time the invasion of iraq. So, how is america going to stop its jewish blackmailer from pushing it into a third proxy zionist war - against iran? The jews-only state knows that if it can provoke iran into attacking the jews-only state or america then there will be a huge public outcry in america for a war against iran. No matter how much the bushies opposed such a war they will find themselves being overwhelmed by the american public’s demand for revenge against iran. If the jews-only state then joins in the war to support its american ally, americans will love the jews-only state even more – despite the fact that they have just been manipulated into committing political, economic and military suicide. By the time the war is over america will have been "sucked dry and exhausted to the point of near-death" but at least americans will have had the pleasure of serving their israeli masters and boosting jewish world domination.

What is so remarkable about the jews-only state blackmailing america into yet another war is not the blackmail but that the bush administration itself gave the jews-only state the means by which it could blackmail america. In november 2004, raimondo made the interesting point about the political consequence of the bush administration arming the jews-only state with the weapons needed to attack iran, "The Israelis are in a position to blackmail both the Iranians and the Americans. They can threaten Tehran with nuclear annihilation – or threaten the U.S. with unilaterally taking out Iran's reactors and plunging the entire region into war. With U.S. troops, as it were, in the midst of it." (Justin Raimondo ‘Arafat and Vanunu: Two Prisoners of War’ November 12, 2004).

The question that needs to be asked is why the bush administration gave the jews-only state in palestine the long range fighter aircraft and the bunker-busting bombs that would make a jewish attack on iran possible given that, if the jews did act unilaterally out of their own national interests, then iranian retaliation would pose a considerable danger to the 150,000 american soldiers stationed in iraq not to mention the thousands more stationed in afghanistan and other middle eastern countries? What this seems to suggest is firstly, that the bush administration has no sense of america’s national interests. Secondly, that the bush administration has been completely taken over by israeli traitors supporting what is in effect jewish world domination.

Mossad Pushed America into Iraq War.
First Published January 25th 2006
"As I have said on many occasions, the process by which we were lied to and lured into the Iraqi quagmire resembles, in all its essentials, a classic disinformation campaign such as would be run by a foreign intelligence operation. The usurpation of authority in the national security bureaucracy, the corruption of the intelligence-gathering process – including the introduction of forged documents – and the deployment of an extensive network both inside and outside of government, all point to a large-scale covert action designed to drag us into war. It wouldn't be the first time a foreign intelligence agency played a key role in getting us into a foreign war, and – as long as the Empire lasts – it won't be the last." (Justin Raimondo ‘Scooter's Motive’ November 28, 2005).

The Jews-only State as a World Power.
First Published January 25th 2006
Raimondo would scoff at the idea of jewish world domination if he could ever bear to think such a radical thought but he is the first commentator who has argued that the jews-only state in palestine is now a world power. "Aside from Zunes' conflation of "Jewish" and "Israeli," which diverts attention away from Israel's ruthless support of its national interests, one has to ask: who is "really" responsible? Why, the U.S., of course: it's the Americans who really are in the saddle when it comes to the "special relationship" between the U.S. and the Jewish state. Israel, according to this classic leftist view, is a "colony" – specifically, a "settler colony," made possible first by the British and today by the American "ruling class." This view, however, neglects the growth of Zionist power in its own right as an independent force in world politics." (Justin Raimondo ‘Sharon's Epitaph’ January 6, 2006); "The new power relationship between the U.S. and Israel is not recognized by Professor Zunes and much of the antiwar Left, just as it is ignored by neoconservative apologists for Israel and their evangelical cheering section on the Right, yet this is the major achievement of Sharon as politician and statesman. He was and is, first and foremost, an Israeli nationalist who always put the interests of his own country first. While much is made of his supposed turning away from the radical Zionist agenda of Likud, a good argument could be made that instead of betraying it he went a long way toward fulfilling it. After all, who would have dreamed, at the height of the first Intifada, that Israel's influence would one day extend all the way to Kirkuk – and that a longtime ally, Ahmed Chalabi, would become Iraq's oil minister? If Israel was once subservient to the Western powers, and their willing instrument, it has now largely broken free in an important sense. The Jewish state is, today, a rising world power: one of the few that successfully bargains with – and often defies – the United States, all without being bombed into submission or targeted for regime change." (Justin Raimondo ‘Sharon's Epitaph. He made Israel into a world power’ January 6, 2006).

The jews-only state in palestine is not a world power. It is not independent in the same way as the united states or russia or most other countries around the world. It depends on america for economic support, military hardware, and advanced technology. Its economy couldn’t survive without the tribute payments it extracts from successive american governments and without private financial aid from jewish billionaires around the world exploit the countries they are living in and funnel the money into the safe haven of the jews-only state. From robert maxwell to russia’s jewish oligarchs to jack abramoff, the world’s jewish billionaires steal from the countries they live in and then deposit their money in the jews-only state. Jews around the world can flee to the safety of the jews-only state when their crimes are revealed and enjoy their ill gotten gains. True the jews-only state has a nuclear arsenal which makes it a threat to many countries around world (it is more powerful than the nazis ever were) but it is not a world power in any other sense. The jews-only state in palestine is the los vegas of the international community. Without vast quantities of resources constantly being funneled into the country it could not sustain itself and would wither away within a matter of years.

The jews-only state in palestine is not a world power but jews rule the world. Jewish world domination comes about through the collective efforts of jews around the world who are able to cajole governments into carrying out the policies of the jews-only state in palestine which the jews-only state cannot implement itself. It comes about through moulding the minds of non jews until they think like jews – the classic example being america’s dechristianized zionists who spend all their time defending the jews-only state in palestine whilst doing nothing to bring about a christian state in america.

Raimondo’s Support for Iran’s Nuclear Weapons.
First Published January 25th 2006
Raimondo is one of the few mainstream internet commentators who has supported the idea of iran developing nuclear weapons. "Insofar as it would make all-out war unthinkable, the acquisition of nuclear weapons by Tehran would, ironically, stabilize as much as destabilize a volcanically volatile region. As it stands now, the entire Middle East lives in the shadow of a possible Israeli first strike against a perceived threat – as exemplified by a recent round of speculation about an imminent Israeli attack on Iran's nuclear sites. This is inherently destabilizing, as it means an increase in "fourth generation" terrorist tactics employed by Israel's enemies, and opens up the possibility that a future Israeli prime minister – perhaps an extremist elected by a radicalized Israeli majority – might one day really pull the nuclear trigger. On the other hand, having leveled the playing field, the Iranians would render the Israeli first-strike strategy inoperable. A war between Israel and its adversaries in the Middle East, rather than ending in the nuking of Tehran, Mecca, and every major Muslim city in the region, would instead have to mean "mutually assured destruction" (MAD) – that old specter of the Cold War that the neocons found so insufferably irritating at the time, and which stood in the way of their dreams of "regime change." (It happened anyway, albeit without their intervention, but that's another story…). Secondly, as I've said above, the evening out of the Middle East playing field might not be such a bad idea after all. With the threat of an Israeli first strike removed, the process of general disarmament – starting with nuclear disarmament – can begin. Let the International Atomic Energy Agency – the UN's official nuclear weapons watchdog – inspect Israel's nuclear sites and make their findings public. Then the Security Council can deal with the allegations against Iran in context – and, perhaps, forge the basis for negotiating the general and complete nuclear disarmament of the entire region, setting in place safeguards and monitoring mechanisms that conduct surveillance on an equal basis." (Justin Raimondo ‘War, Lies, and Videotape’ January 13, 2006).

The Pseudo-Israelis.
First Published January 25th 2006
Raimondo has recently pointed out the existence of a new phenomenon in american politics – pseudo israelis – non-jewish americans who believe they’re citizens of the jews-only state in palestine.

The first case he points to is pat robertson. "The Rev. Pat Robertson, the prominent American televangelist and "Christian Zionist," says the felling of Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon with a massive stroke is punishment from God "for dividing the Land of Israel." According to the Jewish Telegraphic Agency, Robertson, speaking on the 700 Club on Thursday, said that both Sharon and former Israeli Prime Minister Yitzhak Rabin – murdered by an Israeli extremist in 1995 – were victims of retaliation by God Himself. Saith Robertson: "He was dividing God's land. And I would say, Woe unto any prime minister of Israel who takes a similar course to appease the E.U., the United Nations, or the United States of America. God says, This land belongs to me. You better leave it alone." Robertson, the Protestant dispensationalist fanatic who is a more fervent Zionist than even the prime minister of Israel, speaks of "appeasing" the United States of America as if it were a foreign country – or, at any rate, not his country, but something equally foreign and, presumably, repugnant – to him as the EU and the UN." (Justin Raimondo ‘Sharon's Epitaph’ January 6, 2006).

The second case is hillary clinton. "These (iran) war propagandists, including Clinton, make only the most tenuous connection between American interests and the Iranians' alleged forced march to acquire nukes. Instead, they make the argument in favor of ratcheting up the conflict with Iran in terms of the necessity of protecting Israel. Clinton's speech is infused with this militant Israeli patriotism: "The security and freedom of Israel must be decisive and remain at the core of any American approach to the Middle East. This has been a hallmark of American foreign policy for more than 50 years and we must not – dare not – waver from this commitment." While Israel is an American ally, so are Saudi Arabia and Jordan. And don't forget the newly installed "democratic" and supposedly pro-American government of Iraq. Israel "at the core" of U.S. policy in the Middle East? I don't think so. Such an Israelicentric viewpoint, while not out of place in an Israeli politician, seems just a mite strange coming from an American – even if she is a senator from New York. It ought to go without saying that the foundations of U.S. foreign policy in the Middle East – or anywhere else – have to be predicated on purely American interests, and that the "core" of that policy has to be our own economic well-being, which is inextricably linked to the stability of the region." (Justin Raimondo ‘‘Hillary Clinton, War Goddess’ January 23, 2006).

"It is the task of Israel's amen corner in the U.S. to convince the American public, and especially to prevail upon their elected representatives, that Israel's interests and our own always coincide. The propaganda campaign launched to convince us that Iran's president is the next Saddam and Tehran is deserving of a little regime - change assumes this, and the Clinton speech is a prime example: "A nuclear Iran," she avers, "is a danger to Israel, to its neighbors and beyond" – an interesting order of priorities, to say the least. She doesn't bother making any explicit connection between the pursuit of American interests and this relentless campaign to demonize the Iranians: it is enough that Tehran poses a potential threat to Israel. For Clinton, that alone is reason enough to go to war. There is a disturbing quality to Clinton's several reiterations of fealty to Israel: it isn't only the numbing repetition and the brazen pandering, it's also the matter-of-fact yet still hectoring tone, the assumption that only one position is possible: "One cannot look at the Middle East today and not believe that there has been progress against great odds. Former sworn enemies of Israel are recognizing its existence, are even talking about ways of increasing trade, commerce, and diplomatic relations."" (Justin Raimondo ‘Hillary Clinton, War Goddess’ January 23, 2006).

Comments on Raimondo’s ‘Patrick J. 'Bulldog' Fitzgerald, American Insurgent’
First published July 21st 2005.
Raimondo’s efforts to get to the truth about what is going on in the bush administration seems to me to put him well ahead of other commentators in the Truth stakes - especially since alexander cockburn’s criticisms of raimondo seem to suggest he was too frightened about the political implications of raimondo’s thesis to give raimondo the support he deserves.

"What treason the neocons conceived, and carried out, and whose interests they served – these are the real issues at the heart of this investigation. Alexander Cockburn, in his latest column in The Nation – reprinted in Counterpunch – balks at my use of the T-word:" (Justin Raimondo ‘Patrick J. 'Bulldog' Fitzgerald, American Insurgent’ July 20, 2005). When cockburn balks at the word treason he balks at the word truth. This is doubtlessly because he’s frightened of being caught in the barrage of charges of anti-semitism which will be fired in raimondo’s direction if he continues to develop his neocon treason thesis.

But what other thesis fits the facts? Likud loving jews dominate critical positions in the bush administration and were responsible for fabricating the lies that pushed bush into a war whose prime beneficiary was the jews-only state in palestine. It’s just a question of finding the evidence to bring these pathological liars to court so that their acts of treason can be punished.

Comments on Raimondo’s ‘Everything you’ve Always wanted to Know about Neocons’
From the early 1970s onwards, the jewish neocons managed to erect a taboo around their existence. This made it virtually impossible for the american public to discuss what they were doing and their open conspiracy. "But wait - I used the word "neoconservative." Mr. Wald says not only that neoconservative originated as a pejorative used by Michael Harrington (true, if irrelevant) but that there never really were any self-identified "neoconservatives" (false). This line that there never really were any neoconservatives has long been used by Irving Kristol in interviews. I used to laugh about it with other of Kristol's employees. The non-existence of neoconservatism, except in the minds of conspiracy-mongers, certainly would have come as news to me and my fellow neoconservatives when I worked for Kristol and attended conferences and dinner parties with Gertrude Himmelfarb, Bill Kristol, Jeane Kirkpatrick, Peter Berger, and other self-conscious neocons. Unaware that we were not supposed to exist, according to Mr. Wald, we neocons were well aware of the shared views on the Cold War, race, and other topics that distinguished us from the Buckley Tories and the Buchananite Old Right." (Michael Lind ‘I Was Smeared’ History News Network June 30th 2003).

Even in 2004 the neocons were still pretending they didn’t exist. Here was a group of jews, with a splattering of goys to maintain a non-racist, multi-cultural facade, whose history stretched back to the early 1970s when, for the sake of the jews-only state in palestine, they wrecked nixon and kissinger’s détente with the soviet empire. In other words, for thirty years they’d managed to prevent their political identity from becoming a matter of public debate even though they’d been responsible for some of america’s most pivotal political decisions over that time. This wasn’t a group of conspirators working behind the scenes surreptitiously manipulating events to serve their interests like the so-called Elders of Zion. This was a massive network of highly influential jews in the media and political domain who operated openly in public because they knew the jewish dominated media would never expose their israeli compatriots on the political stage. This is similar to the american media’s treatment of events after the collapse of the soviet empire when a group of jews managed to wrest control of virtually all of russia’s major industrial assets. The jewish dominated media referred to them either as "the family" or "the oligarchs" rather than what they were i.e. "zionist oligarchs" or, even more accurately, jewish traitors to the russian state.

There was also a jewish taboo against any public discussion of the idea that the jews-only state in palestine and their allies in the american media and the bush administration were responsible for pushing america into a war against iraq which was only in the interests of the jews-only state not america, "The ground shifted this week, subtly but critically, in the ongoing debate over the role of Israel in America's Iraq policy, one more step in the growing insecurity facing Jews and the Jewish state in the wake of the Iraq war. As recently as a week ago, reasonable people still could dismiss as antisemitic conspiracy mongering the claim that Israel's security was the real motive behind the invasion of Iraq. No longer. The allegation has now moved from the fringes into the mainstream. Its advocates can no longer simply be shushed or dismissed as bigots. Those who disagree must now argue the case on the merits." (Editorial ‘The Ground Shifts’ May 28, 2004).

Raimondo’s article ‘Everything you’ve Always wanted to Know about Neocons’ was one of the first to challenge the taboo surrounding the neocons, "(David) Brooks says that to even breathe the n-word is to flirt with Hitlerian tendencies, and Joel Mowbray agrees. So, too, does Jonah Goldberg, and that seems to finalize the verdict of the jury. Except that it doesn't," (Justin Raimondo ‘Everything you’ve Always wanted to Know about Neocons’ January 9th 2004). Raimondo belatedly categorizes this taboo as a form of political correctness just asking to be challenged, "According to this latest modification of the unwritten laws of political correctness, one is not allowed to utter a Jewish-sounding name in tandem with any discussion of neoconservatism – or in connection with the conduct of American foreign policy. That's one rule they're going to have an awfully hard time enforcing." (Justin Raimondo ‘Everything you’ve Always wanted to Know about Neocons’ January 9th 2004).

The neocons were powerful enough to enforce a taboo against their public exposure and yet they denied they possessed any power because they had no members in the top tier of government, the bush cabinet. But raimondo likenened their power to that of princely advisors, "These avid students of Machiavelli see themselves as advisors to the Prince, and it is there, as the Italian master of intrigue and power politics knew, that the power very often lies." (Justin Raimondo ‘Everything you’ve Always wanted to Know about Neocons’ January 9th 2004).

The main purpose of raimondo’s article was to expose the neocons’ origins in revolutionary marxism to explain their advocacy for global pre-emption, interventionism, and democratization. He ignored the fact that what the neocons were doing was aligning american foreign policies with those of the jews-only state in palestine. The neocons have succeeded in foisting these policies of the jews-only state onto successive american administrations. As a right wing commentator, what annoyed raimondo was that the neocons were basically introducing extreme left wing, jacobin, policies into america – not that they were introducing the policies of the jews-only in palestine.

Raimondo hypothesizes that, "The neocons have been around since the damn 1930s, fer chrissake, in one form or another, first as schismatic Trotskyists, then as schismatic Democrats, and now as occasionally schismatic Republicans. Their ideological colors changed over the years, but the core principle at the heart of their faction remained the same. Always they pushed for war: class war, world war, perpetual war. Will we never be rid of them?" (Justin Raimondo ‘Everything you’ve Always wanted to Know about Neocons’ January 9th 2004).

Unfortunately, this analysis leads to an anomaly over china – an anomaly which even he is forced to acknowledge, "I will concede, however, that Bush's policy of détente with China hardly coincides with the neocon position, which is always and everywhere an unrestrained belligerence." (Justin Raimondo ‘Everything you’ve Always wanted to Know about Neocons’ January 9th 2004). Raimondo doesn’t seem to countenance the possibility that this anomaly undermines his belief in neocons’ desire for "unrestrained belligerence". The reason the neocons are not overly-interested in china is because their main aim is to get america to adopt the foreign policies of the jews-only state. To the jews-only state in palestine, the main dangers to the jews-only state are, in ascending order of threat: the palestinians, anti-zionist ‘terrorists’ such as hamas and hezbollah, middle eastern countries such as syria and iran, but overwhelmingly, russia. Despite the fact that many commentators predict that china is an emerging superpower, it does not at present pose a direct threat to the jews-only state in the same way as does russia. That the jews-only state does not take a belligerent stance towards china is apparent from the fact that it continues to trade with the chinese government. Not only the jews-only state. Some neocons have business interests with the chinese. "Richard Perle, the single most powerful hawk outside the administration, has been retained by Global Crossing to help ensure that Hutchison Whampoa, widely regarded by his fellow hawks as a front for China's People's Liberation Army, can buy a majority share in the bankrupt telecommunications company." (Jim Lobe ‘Perle: 'Prince of Darkness' in the spotlight’ March 25th 2003).

Max boot defended the neocons by suggesting that because they were not all jews then they could not be concerned primarily with the jews-only state. Raimondo disagreed, "Boot's argument is self-refuting in many places, but certainly in this section, wherein he lists a whole platoon of non-Jewish neocons, and then goes on to claim that "the charge that neocons are concerned above all with the welfare of Israel is patently false." Yet each and every one of the aforementioned non-Jewish neocons – Bill Bennett, James Woolsey, John Newhaus, Michael Novak, and Jeane Kirkpatrick – are slavish supporters of whatever line the Israeli government happens to be putting out. You don't have to be Jewish to be a full-fledged member of Israel's amen corner in America, and nobody important ever said any different." (Justin Raimondo ‘Everything you’ve Always wanted to Know about Neocons’ January 9th 2004).

The fact that there are non-jews amongst the neocons is sufficient for raimondo to contend, ""Neocons are Jews who serve the interests of Israel" – this a headline, set in 30-point type, as if the size of the font gives weight to the words. But all the fancy formatting really does is underscore the brutal idiocy of a proposition that precisely no one of any consequence holds." (Justin Raimondo ‘Everything you’ve Always wanted to Know about Neocons’ January 9th 2004). He dismisses the proposition "Neocons are Jews who serve the interests of Israel" because not all neocons are jews not because neocons don’t put the jews-only state first.

Stephen j. sniegoski quickly responded, "Raimondo, doubtlessly desiring to fend off the career-killing charge of "anti-Semitism," himself denies the very essence of neoconservatism. For example, citing neocon Max Boot's statement that the neocons' critics maintain that "neocons are Jews who serve the interests of Israel," Raimondo objects that this connection of Jewish neocons to Israel's interests is "a proposition that precisely no one of any consequence holds." Interestingly put. I certainly am of no consequence, which is why it falls to me and others of my ill-respected ilk to point out that the connection between the predominant Jewishness of the neocons and their support of Israel is self-evident." (Stephen j. Sniegoski ‘Almost everything about neocons’ January 12, 2004). Sniegoski continued, "The fact that Raimondo has to deny the Jewish nature of neoconservatism out of self-protection illustrates the tremendous power of the taboo against discussing Jewish influence. And that very taboo has contributed greatly to the neocons' power and success." (Stephen j. Sniegoski ‘Almost everything about neocons’ January 12, 2004).

Sniegoski appreciated that, "Now, Raimondo does acknowledge that neocons identify wholeheartedly with Israel: "The defense of Israel has always been a foundation stone of the neoconservative approach to U.S. policy in the Middle East ..." To avoid the "anti-Semitic" stigma, however, Raimondo tries to separate identification with Israel from Jewishness. According to Raimondo, neocons support the self-identified Jewish state simply out of an ideological belief that is unconnected with ethnic identity." (Stephen j. Sniegoski ‘Almost everything about neocons’ January 12, 2004). Sniegoski rightly sides with kevin macdonald over this issue, "Kevin MacDonald goes over the Jewish/neocon connection in his enlightening article at, "Thinking About Neoconservatism." MacDonald writes: "Ethnic politics in the U.S. are certainly not limited to Jewish activism. They are an absolutely normal phenomenon throughout history and around the world. But for well over half a century, with rare exceptions, Jewish influence has been off-limits for rational discussion."" (Stephen j. Sniegoski ‘Almost everything about neocons’ January 12, 2004).

Comments on Raimondo’s ‘Arafat and Vanunu: Two Prisoners of War’
In november 2004, raimondo made the interesting point about the political consequence of the bush administration arming the jews-only state with the weapons needed to attack iran, "The Israelis are in a position to blackmail both the Iranians and the Americans. They can threaten Tehran with nuclear annihilation – or threaten the U.S. with unilaterally taking out Iran's reactors and plunging the entire region into war. With U.S. troops, as it were, in the midst of it." (Justin Raimondo ‘Arafat and Vanunu: Two Prisoners of War’ November 12, 2004).

The question that needs to be asked is why the bush administration gave the jews-only state in palestine the long range fighter aircraft and the bunker-busting bombs that would make a zionist attack on iran possible given that, if the zionists did act unilaterally out of their own national interests, then iranian retaliation would pose a considerable danger to the 150,000 american soldiers stationed in iraq not to mention the thousands more stationed in afghanistan and other middle eastern countries? What this seems to suggest is that the bush administration has no sense of america’s national interests. It also seems to suggest the bush administration has been completely taken over by israeli traitors supporting what is in effect zionist world domination. The israelis in the bush administration are now in a position to blackmail bush only because bush put himself in a position to be blackmailed. Funny that neither of the shabbat goy puppets in the 2004 presidential elections discussed this issue.

Raimondo’s explaination for america’s self-imposed vulnerability to the jews-only state is that america’s "lopsided Middle Eastern policy is unfailingly Israeli-centric." The assumption here is that the zionists control only america’s foreign policies in the middle east – for some bizarre, or should that be bizarro, reason zionists do not dominate american domestic politics. America is supposedly a christian nation and yet the 3% of its population which is jewish have managed to protect the separation of church and state. There are bills being formulated in the american congress which seek to make it illegal for christians to criticize the zionist state in palestine. Much more importantly, america’s so-called christian evangelists have never protested to the jews-only state in palestine over the appalling treatment of the significant proportion of palestinians who are christian. American christians didn’t even bother to protest about the zionist police’s desecration of a christian church in jerusalem when they re-arrested vanunu. This is because zionists have managed to indoctrinate most american christians into becoming dechristianized zionists. In other words, they have persuaded so-called christian evangelists to ditch their christian god for the sake of the war-mongering zionist god, the master of the universe. Zionists’ dominance of america’s foreign policy is a by-product of their control over america’s domestic politics.

Raimondo makes the quite common sensical argument, "If Palestinians were black, instead of a rich nut-brown, the UN would have imposed strict sanctions long ago, and in the U.S. the Israeli government would be as reviled as the white South African or Rhodesian regimes that lorded it over their native African majorities." The reason that large numbers of americans support the jews-only state in palestine, and are thus as guilty for zionist war crimes as the zionists themselves, is because the zionist lobby, the zionist media, the zionist dominated congress, the zionist dominated major political parties, and the zionist run presidency, has indoctrinated them into becoming zionist zombies.

Zionists protest they do not dominate the american media, the american congress, american political parties, nor the american presidency. However, some zionists are so confident about zionist domination they’ve stopped bothering to perpetuate the charade as the following quote from raimondo’s article makes clear, ""It is not impossible that the Jewish people will have the ability to threaten and put pressure on the entire world to accept our way. But even if we acquire the power to seize control of the world, that is not the way to realize the vision of complete redemption." The fact that so many americans cannot interpret recent historical events pointing to the existence of a global zionist conspiracy is yet further evidence of the existence of this global zionist conspiracy. No enemy is ever going to be defeated unless the name of that enemy is stated clearly.

Raimondo rightly argued that, "Since that time (the balfour declaration) we have had nothing but trouble, and the conflict it created has increased exponentially with the passage of time until it threatens to engulf the whole world in a maelstrom of hate and retribution." This leads him to the conclusion that america must change its foreign policies by withdrawing from the middle east. Putting aside the morality of america leaving the jews-only state in almost complete domination over palestinians, it has to be suggested that until non-jewish americans curb the political power of the jews in american politics, then there is no likelihood of a change in america’s foreign policies.

For america to leave the jews-only state as by far and away the most powerful military force in the middle east will cause only further demonic tragedies. America has got to remove zionists’ weapons of mass destruction and the zionist squatters in palestinian areas before it leaves the middle east. If this means bombing the jews-only state into submission then so be it.

Comments on Raimondo’s Red-State Fascism
Raimondo’s promotion of the idea of "red-state fascism" is another example of the weakness of his anti-zionist critique. In a march 2005 article he stated, "From the moment the twin towers were hit, the fascist seed began to germinate, to take root and grow. The Republican Party's response to 9/11 was to push through the most repressive series of laws since the Alien and Sedition Acts, starting with the "PATRIOT Act" and its successors – making it possible for American citizens to be held without charges, without public evidence, without trial, and giving the federal government unprecedented powers to conduct surveillance of its own citizens." (Justin Raimondo ‘A Fascist America. How close are we?’ March 4, 2005). He then proceeded to delineate what he believed was the most important aspect of the fascist mentality .. "the seizure of power as an "emergency" measure to prevent some larger catastrophe, is a common theme of fascist coups everywhere, and in America it is playing out no differently." He concluded, "The neoconservative movement represents the quintessence of fascism …" (Justin Raimondo ‘A Fascist America. How close are we?’ March 4, 2005).

Raimondo is right to complain about the bush administration’s curbing of civil liberties. He is right to point out that neoconservatives are playing a central role in the loss of basic freedoms. And he rightly pinpoints the idea that a political emergency could be the trigger for a fascist state. However, the proposition of ‘red-state fascism’ is irrelevant for a number of reasons.

Firstly, the assumption behind this analysis is that the threat to america’s constitution comes mainly from rural, christian evangelists in america’s red states. But these so called christians have become the victims of zionist manipulation. They have been won over to zionism and turned into dechristianized zionists. Zionists wooed, and bribed, the leaders of the so-called christian evangelists who then helped to convert their christian flocks to follow this new zionist goal. How could dechristianized zionists be a threat to america’s freedoms when they’re just muppets being manipulated by zionists?

Secondly, the blue states support the war against terrorism just as much as the red states. There is virtually no difference between the republicans and the democrats over the war in iraq, the curbing of civil liberties in america, and further wars against iran and syria. The reason for this is that both parties have been infiltrated by israeli traitors (jews who put the jews-only state first) so that they have become the international branches of the likud party whose central headquarters are in palestine. The likudnic democratic party is only slightly less racist and imperialistic than the likudnic republican party.

Thirdly, the major political issue at stake in america is not fascism but racism. The introduction of fascism usually occurs because of internal, domestic problems such as the threat of widespread disorder or even civil war. Fascism is almost invariably an internal national problem which rarely spills over onto the world stage. Fascist governments rarely become involved in imperialist adventures. Franco is a good case in point and also, to a lesser extent given his minor overseas adventures, mussolini. Racism, however, is not a mere domestic problem, it tends to lead to attacks on other countries thereby causing an international problem. In addition, fascist governments round up their political opponents and even execute the most threatening or troublesome leaders. Racist governments however carry out ethnic cleansing even of those people not in opposition to the government. Fascism is not radical enough to countenance ethnic cleansing.

The major problem america is experiencing at present is racism. The neocons in the american media, in the zionist lobby, and the american political system, are fostering racial hatred through the introduction of anti-terrorist laws that target moslems. Some neocons even want large numbers of moslems in america rounded up and put into concentration camps. On the world stage, the neocons are pushing america into race wars against iraq and other moslem countries. The more that the america’s jewish traitors can stir up racial hatred against moslems in america, the greater the support they will win for the american administration to embark on further racist wars against the moslem world. The neocons have been successful in persuading the bush administration to fight their racist wars against the moslem world and to wage a racist war in america by curbing moslem’s civil liberties. America is suffering from a zionist-induced race war causing domestic and global strife, not a domestic fascist problem.

The neocons’ control over america’s foreign and domestic policies. The spread of racism in america is just the mirror image of america’s proxy zionist wars in the middle east and its support for the racism of the jews-only state in palestine. What is being created in america is the world’s first two party racist dictatorship. The right wing republican likud party and the slightly less right wing democratic likud party both give whole-hearted support for the jews-only state in palestine, racist wars against the moslem world, and racist curbs on moslems in america. In effect, the neocons are importing the racism of the jews-only state in palestine into america. Until americans deal with these jewish traitors in their midst america will continue to pursue jews-only racism at home and abroad.

Raimondo promotes the idea of ‘red-state fascism’ because he refuses to acknowledge the jewish race war against moslems. He’s recognized that zionists have taken over the republican party and changed its basic beliefs concerning domestic and foreign policies, "There already exists, in the neoconized Republican Party, a mass-based movement that fervently believes in a strong central State and a foreign policy of perpetual war." (Justin Raimondo ‘A Fascist America. How close are we?’ March 4, 2005). But he is unwilling to regard this is anything more serious than a fascist development.

Comments on Raimondo’s Israel Goes Extremist.
Raimondo’s failure to adopt a radical critique of zionism is obvious in his April 2005 article on extremism in the jews-only state, "Over the years, as the actions of the Israeli government have become more extreme – and less concerned with international public opinion – very little of what Israel's leaders say or do seems all that surprising. Invading the West Bank and Gaza, demolishing peoples' homes, defying the U.S. on the settlements issue as they angle for more "foreign aid" from the clueless Americans – even running over people with tanks! – it all makes a twisted kind of sense, given the fanatical nationalism that motivates Israel's partisans both here and in Palestine. (A fanaticism, I might add, that flourishes on both sides of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.) Yet, even amid all this emotional and political hysteria, the Israelis have often exhibited an admirable pragmatism: they were willing to make concessions (or not) depending on Israel's national security needs at the time. Sharon's "strategic disengagement" plan – in spite of being compromised by all sorts of hemming, hawing, and hedging – is a good example of this commonsense approach." (Justin Raimondo ‘Israel Goes Extremist’ April 8, 2005).

This statement reveals many assumptions. Firstly, he believes that what motivates the jews-only state is "fanatical nationalism" rather than racism. Secondly, he believes that palestinians share this fanaticism with jews as if they are as much responsible for their persecution as the jews-only state, "A fanaticism, I might add, that flourishes on both sides of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict." One wonders why this might be??? Thirdly, the gaza disengagement "is a good example of this commonsense approach." But whether common sense for a mass murderer, war criminal, terrorist, and supporter of lebensraum, is the sort of common sense needed to bring peace to the middle east is another matter.

What raises raimondo’s hackles is that the common sensical ariel sharon has decided to honour the terrorists involved in the lavon affair in egypt in 1952. He rightly protests. Firstly, "Tel Aviv, and its amen corner in the U.S., kept telling us after 9/11 that Israel is America's staunchest ally in the fight against terrorism – and yet now they are hailing as "heroes" a coven of terrorists trained by themselves." Secondly, "On presenting the three survivors and the families of the deceased with official citations, Israeli Chief of General Staff Lt. Gen. Moshe Ya'alon averred, "This is historic justice for those who were sent on a mission on behalf of the state and became the victims of a complex political affair." Justice? What about justice for the victims of those bombs, which exploded in a post office, a couple of movie theaters, and the American library in Cairo? I guess they don't count." (Justin Raimondo ‘Israel Goes Extremist’ April 8, 2005). One of the terrorists even wants his terrorist activities taught in jews-only schools. Raimondo also points out that the israeli traitors in the bush administration failed to condemn sharon’s recognition of the lavon terrorists.

However, for raimondo to believe that the jews-only honoring of their lavon terrorists is a step too far, after all that the jews-only state has done over the last fifty years, really is a chronic failure of analysis. Sharon, a terrorist, honours jews-only terrorists. What a shock!!!!

Comments on Raimondo’s ‘Plan of Attack’
As the trial of franklin has come closer, raimondo has increased his anti-zionist rhetoric. He alleges that the neocons pulled off a coup d’etat to psuh america into a proxy zionist war against iraq, "In effect, the neocons pulled off a coup d'etat, a palace revolution in which veteran government officials like Richard Clarke, and the CIA and Pentagon "old guard," were pushed aside. If the purpose of the U.S. government is to protect American security and interests, then why did there need to be a "separate" and competing government – unless that government was pursuing other, non-American interests?" (Justin Raimondo ‘Plan of Attack’ April 19, 2004).

If a coup d’etat isn’t a conspiracy it is impossible to define the word, "Not only the Woodward book, but the series of whistleblowers who have come out of the closet and revealed the inner workings of the Bush administration, lead us into territory that, for want of a better word, can only be called a "conspiracy theory." Which, one supposes, is one way of saying that everything is not an accident. There is, however, no way to understand where we are, and how we got here, unless we see the push to get us into Iraq as a successful covert operation. A success, that is, not in terms of American interests, but in the terms of those who carried it out. The Iraq war, the diversion away from the real authors of 9/11, the costly obsession with Saddam Hussein, the professed intention of "staying the course" of an unsustainable policy – none of it makes any sense when viewed through the prism of American national interests. The entire thrust of our Middle East policy is counter-intuitive and counterproductive. Only two parties benefited from the invasion of Iraq: the Likudniks (and their American branch office) loyal to Sharon and the jihadists associated with Osama Bin Laden." (Justin Raimondo ‘Plan of Attack’ April 19, 2004).

On the other hand, the concept of the Iraq war as a successful Israeli covert operation is altogether plausible. It would hardly be the first time a foreign government made a concerted effort to drag us into war on their side. And just look at the pattern of recent events: Israel gains, America pays: Israel assassinates, Americans die: Israel conquers, and the American government concurs wholeheartedly: Israel says "Jump!" and the government of the United States only wants to know how high. Israel's partisans inside the U.S. government – who, according to top officials and other "defectors," set up their own "separate government" – seized the helm and steered the American ship of state into turbulent waters. This war, and the policy that gave birth to it, is criminal in so many different ways, but surely treason is not the least of the crimes that can be ascribed to the leaders of the War Party. The investigation into the machinations of this group – who acted, in effect if not consciously, as agents of a foreign power – is a ticking time-bomb for this administration – or, at least, for the "separate government" set up by the Cheney-Wolfowitz-Feith junta." (Justin Raimondo ‘Plan of Attack’ April 19, 2004)

Comments on Raimondo’s ‘Comrade Aaronovitch Strikes Again’
Raimondo’s response to gilad atzmon’s statement, "American Jews do try to control the world, by proxy. So far they are doing pretty well for themselves at least." Is, "Brought up in a right-wing ultra-Zionist family, Atzmon appears so enamored of his own ability to provoke that he has lost sight of either truth or common sense." (Justin Raimondo ‘Comrade Aaronovitch Strikes Again’ June 29, 2005).

What is interesting about this article is raimondo’s claim that he’d never heard of israel shamir – a surprising statement for a political commentator in the media. However, this admission doesn’t stop him from lamenting that, "He (shamir) knows nothing about me or my views." (Justin Raimondo ‘Comrade Aaronovitch Strikes Again’ June 29, 2005).

Raimondo then argues, "support for that war (the invasion of iraq) within the administration had nothing to do with putting Jews in an "exalted position," but everything to do with putting the nation-state of Israel in such a position. That Shamir doesn't make any distinction between these two very different motives is what makes him an anti-Semite and sets him very far apart not only from my own views but from the broad antiwar movement as well." He reinforces this argument by suggesting .. "most American Jews opposed the Iraq war, and they continue to oppose it. Israel is not "the Jews" – it is a nation, with interests unique to itself and policies that are all too often directly counterposed to the interests and beliefs of Jews worldwide."

Once again, as was the case in his article ‘Everything you’ve Always wanted to Know about Neocons’ raimondo avoids any chance of being accused of anti-semitism by focussing on the jews-only state rather than american jews. He thus argues most jews in america oppose the war just as juan cole has argued that in presidential elections most vote for democratic, rather than the republican, candidates. It is true that many in the jewish establishment in america were vociferous in favour of the war whilst many jews outside the jewish establishment became prominent in the anti-war movement but to believe that most jews in america opposed the war is highly unlikely. Firstly, virtually all jews in america are also de jure citizens of the jews-only state in palestine. They are dual citizens. They can confine their citizenship to america only by renouncing their citizenship of the jews-only state in palestine but, as far as is known, only a handful of jews have done this. Secondly, the vast majority of jews in america support the jews-only state so, as a corollary, they support anything that is good for the jews-only state such as the invasion of iraq. Thirdly, the vast majority of jews in america support ariel sharon (even though they allegedly vote democrat in america) and ariel sharon was one of the main proponents of the invasion of iraq. Finally, whilst many jews in america have become leading opponents of the invasion and occupation of iraq virtually all other jews have never expressed any opposition to the war which implies their tacit support for the war.

Shamir rightly argues that one of the consequences of so many jews leading the anti-war movement was that "the US antiwar movement was very hesitant of ever tying the war in Iraq with the cause of Palestine. They preferred to blame the war on ‘oil interests’." (Israel Shamir ‘Comrade Raimondo Seeks a Scapegoat’ July 2nd 2005).

It is quite true as raimondo points out that the interests of the jews-only state are "unique to itself" and "are all too often directly counterposed to the interests and beliefs of Jews worldwide." The way that zionists sacrificed jews during the second world war shows this beyond doubt and this situation is unlikely to have changed over the last sixty years. However, this does not stop jews in america from supporting the jews-only state, its policies, or its leaders.

Shamir’s witty retort to the stance taken by raimondo is, "If Raimondo were slapped by Aaronovitch, he would probably claim that he was slapped by Aaronovitch’s hand "which has nothing to do with Comrade Aaronovitch". In my view, if Aaronovitch’s hand slaps Raimondo, probably his body and head are not too far behind." (Israel Shamir ‘Comrade Raimondo Seeks a Scapegoat’ July 2nd 2005).

Raimondo has the right to distance himself from those whose views he does not support but to make such a statement as "the addled brain of a nutbar like Shamir" is unwarranted – especially since shamir has done far more than raimondo to break the taboos surrounding jewish power in america. It might have been expected that raimondo would praise shamir for his almost libertarian openness in discussing taboo issues instead of making such a disparaging remark. He cements himself into his own concrete boots when he states "shamir and the other wacko characters I'm supposed to be in bed with, because they're so obscure that most reasonably informed people wouldn't have heard of them." It is ridiculous to describe shamir, paul eisen and gilad atzmon, as being wackos. And if they remain obscure to "most reasonably informed people" this is the fault of media commentators such as raimondo for not introducing or highlighting their work. Reasonably informed people would be even more reasonable and even more informed if they took the time and trouble to read the views of these three jewish radicals. Raimondo then has the audacity to state, "The War Party greatly fears unity among the antiwar forces, in Great Britain as well as in the U.S. If they can succeed in demonizing antiwar conservatives such as Buchanan and a libertarian such as myself, and play on the Left's own caricaturized conception of the Right – a caricature based on ignorance and loyalty to an outmoded "left-right" paradigm – they can split opponents of America's imperial ambitions and even set them against each other." The war party doesn’t need to demonize their opponents when raimondo is doing their job for them in demonizing these leading anti-war voices. The zionist establishment in america seems to have permanently occupied raimondo’s brain for him to come out with sch an appalling statement as, "Shamir, to cater to his deranged constituency of Jew-haters .." (Justin Raimondo ‘Comrade Aaronovitch Strikes Again’ June 29, 2005).

Raimondo is one of the leading anti-war voices but his ignorance and denunciations of shamir, eisen, and atzmon, is disgraceful – even more so when he should be establishing common cause with them. The problem that america is suffering at the moment is zionist domination of the american media, the american congress, american political parties, american state institutions, and the american presidency. The iraq war is just a symptom of this dominance and until this domination is ended there are going to be further proxy zionist wars. Raimondo needs to build alliances with the likes of jews such as shamir, eisen and atzmon, in order to combat zionist dominance.

For further information please see
‘The Zionists’ Rise to World Domination’

‘Essays on Zionism, Zionization, the Second Zionist Proxy War against Iraq, and the Global Zionist Conspiracy for World Domination’