Xymphora's hitting the bull's eye consistently these days. (Helps to explain why he's so popular.) Even for veteran Kissinger haters like myself (but who haven't done sufficient reading), there are some eye-opening things here. I knew he was a ruthless Zionist but I hadn't realized how far his power extended and was used.
Xymphora's blog entry also makes a point I hadn't thought of: the obviously wrongheaded war for oil folks--will they finally admit that that's not happening? -- have a tendency to use oil as a way to obscure the war for Israel factor. And even fewer seem to recognize --here I depart from Xymphora -- that devastating Iraq (and Afghanistan, Jordan and Syria and Lebanon, and elsewhere) does not advance Empire or Imperialism either. In that case there would be some advantage to the US, which is not the case. While Bush-Cheney destroy Iraq -- as intended -- they are also destroying the US and the rest of the world -- as intended.
Ronald
***
Xymphora wrote:
December 15, 2007
Henry the K's Noamian moment
http://xymphora.blogspot.com/
International war criminal Henry the K, who is Jewish, has always managed to deflect accusations of being a covert ‘dual loyalist’ Zionist, despite the fact that his advice always seemed to follow the dictates of the Israeli right-wingers, all on the basis of his reputation as the ultimate foreign policy ‘realist’. Since he was such a bastard of an America-firster, it was always assumed that evidence which pointed to his favoring certain Israeli interests was just a coincidence reflecting the Chomskean idea – now known to be largely false, and manufactured to cover secret support for Zionism – that American support for Israel was entirely based on the fact that such support mirrored the interests of the American Establishment. Not only was Kissinger responsible for the ‘special relationship’ which led directly to billions of dollars of military aid to Israel over the years, but he actually delayed telling Nixon about the Yom Kippur war so he could secretly put the U. S. on a full war footing to be prepared to fight for Israel (he no doubt feared that the ‘anti-Semite’ Nixon would nix the idea). Philip Giraldi summarizes what amounts to a treason case against Kissinger:
“In 1972, Kissinger and Nixon ceded to Israel a veto over any peace proposals that Washington might be considering in dealing with the Arab states, basically accepting the principle that Tel Aviv would call all the shots in the region without regard to American interests. In October 1973, the same duo airlifted military supplies to Israel during the Yom Kippur War to the tune of $2.2 billion in impromptu aid, leading to the Arab oil embargo and its catastrophic impact on the U.S. economy, which amounted to nearly $50 billion in 1974 alone (equivalent to $140 billion in 2000 dollars.
In late October 1973 Kissinger was sent to Moscow to negotiate with Soviet leader Leonid Brezhnev to pursue a comprehensive peace process for the Middle East, but he ignored Nixon's instructions and pressed instead for a cease-fire that left Israel dominant and destroyed any chance for a multilateral peace effort. According to Mearsheimer and Walt, ‘The American-compiled minutes of the three meetings that Kissinger attended with Brezhnev unequivocally show that he accurately and repeatedly represented Israeli interests to Moscow, almost totally contrary to Nixon's preferences.’ When the UN Security Council subsequently passed a cease-fire resolution, Kissinger allowed the Israelis to ignore it for 12 hours so they could consolidate their gains.
In 1975, while secretary of state, Kissinger signed a memorandum of understanding that pledged the U.S. to provide for Israel's oil needs in the event of a crisis and to finance and stock a strategic reserve. He also agreed that Washington would not ‘recognize or negotiate with’ the PLO as long as the group refused to recognize Israel's right to exist. This made it impossible to talk to the only group that represented the aspirations of most Palestinians, a dialogue that the Israelis wished to derail but which would have served America's interests. Kissinger's last year as secretary of state also saw Israel's aid from the U.S. skyrocket from $1.9 billion in 1975 to $6.29 billion for 1976.”
You can thus blame Kissinger for the American oil guarantee to Israel, the continuing failure of negotiations with the Palestinians, the Arab oil embargo, the massive American monetary support to the Zionist Empire, and the beginnings of the United States fighting the Wars for the Jews.
Now, with his ridiculous dismissal of the NIE on Iran, he finally admits his true colors. Just as Noam’s political philosophy now appears to be a carefully constructed ruse to hide underlying advocacy for Zionism, Henry the K’s Realpolitik has suddenly been shown to be a cover for his real interests, the promotion of a Zionist Empire in the Middle East (and note that his connecting an attack on Iran to oil – not to mention Greenspan’s connection of the attack on Iraq to oil – is intentionally misleading in the usual Zionist way of hiding Zionist interests behind American interests). It is curious that Chomsky was forced to reveal himself by denying the importance of the Lobby, and Henry the K had to come out as a Zionist because of the inconvenience of the NIE for ultra-right-wing Zionist interests. In both cases, the siren lure of a Zionist Empire was so strong that it led directly to the destruction of a lifetime’s reputation. All the books on Henry the K now need to be rewritten to reflect who he is really working for.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
1 comment:
Julie responds to Ronald:
Ronald, haven't you read, "Rebuilding America's Defenses?" The (conscious) goal of the neo-cons is not to
destroy the U.S. empire but to take advantage of the U.S.'s current pre-eminent military position to re-
consolidate the Empire on a new footing. (I'm not saying that they're not unconsciously nihilist like Hitler and
Pol Pot. Sadism and nihilism usually do co-exist, probably; Hitler's generals gossiped early on in his
aggressive exploits that he must have some sexual fetish that led him to take the country to war without adequate
preparion.) With the USSR gone, the neocons theorize that, because of the size and strength of the U.S. military,
it no longer needs allies; the U.S. instead needs and intends to be able to intimidate everyone, to deny
military parity even to closest allies by, for example, unilaterally militarizing space. Their view: the U.S.
is the only pole, for now, in an essentially unipolar world, and had better take advantage of that fact fast, to
conquer and extract resources and establish a permanent regime of exploitation with no rivals (before any rival
emerges). 9/11 took place in order to gain support for funding massive rearmament in order to carry out these
conquests. The main potential rival, China, is the ultimate target of the series of attacks planned on
Afghanistan, Iraq, Iran, N. Korea. Please note the plans (as in the discussion of the need for a "new Pearl
Harbor," framed as though it's going to happen the way the weather does, by forces that can be predicted but for
which no responsibility is acknowledged) for the development of biological weapons that can target specific
ethnic groups.
I agree with you that Cheney et al represent a danger to human civilization and viability perhaps even more
serious than Hitler. Even Hitler, however, did not consciously intend to wipe out Germany or civilization, in
fact the Nazis confiscated, catalogued and repatriated many important cultural artifacts. He wanted world
domination, and thought the way to get it was to consolidate power in his own hands by intimidating his opponents
through brutality (the way any gangster maintains control of his organization and territory). Hitler
overestimated his strategic prowess, that's all, as did many of his generals, whom he also succeeded in
intimidating with a string of military "successes" for the first third or so of the war largely consisting in his
enemies' failing to defend themselves (e.g. Czechoslovakia, which was likely well enough fortified to have
defeated Hitler's unprepared invading force, had it engaged them; and Austria, where Hitler was popular.) (Remind
you of the current celebrations of the "success" of the "surge," intimidating the Dems out of opposition to
further expansion of the war?) (By the way, don't think I'm any authority on WWII; I've just been browsing in a
couple of onine Hitler bios and extracts of bios the last couple of days.)
As for the U.S. funding the Sunnis and Shia, that is nothing exceptional. The U.S. funded both sides of the Iraq/
Iran war throughout the conflagration, deliberately alternating sides to keep the conflict going. Empires always
aim to divide and conquer, and false flag operations to get people fighting eachother are an old game: if
they're not afraid of each other, why would the Sunnia and Shia allow the U.S. to remain? They would unite to
drive the U.S. out, and then the U.S. would lose those permanent bases and long-term military control of the
resource that will enable the intended domination of Europe (again, I'm just citing "Rebuilding America's
Defenses." Besides, only through war can the U.S. economy survive, dependent as it is on arms exports. So our
"national interest" as the neocons view (and profit from) it depends on fanning global flames of hatred. And has
for a long time. "Stability" and "peace" are not in the interests of our oil or military-industrial complex,
only of smaller manufacturing factions. The price of oil, and oil profits, are highest during middle east wars.
And, obviously, armaments are best sold to nations embarking on or enmeshed in war.
Julie
Ronald responds to Julie:
Thanks, Julie. Good to know you're on our side of the 9/11 scam. Next step: The no planes
group. See my article: Holmgren and Reynolds on No Planes --Exposing the Illusion. (After the intro
you can skip to the section: "No Planes in DC or in PA?" half way thru -- the first part is on the controlled
demolitions and on the Pentagon attack.)
For the rest -- reminds me of our head to head on Marx-Malthus years ago it seems --
my main argument is the exceptionalism of Bush-Cheney. It's not business as usual
for material gain, oil, personal wealth, Empire, imperialism or even payback to their base. It's the
ideological vision of destruction shared by leaders such as Hitler, Pol Pot. It's endless
war,it's suicidal.
I'm afraid this doesn't do justice to yours, but I expect there'll be more of this anon.
Julie responds to Ronald
Ronald, haven't you read, "Rebuilding America's Defenses?" The (conscious) goal of the neo-cons is not to
destroy the U.S. empire but to take advantage of the U.S.'s current pre-eminent military position to re-
consolidate the Empire on a new footing. (I'm not saying that they're not unconsciously nihilist like Hitler and
Pol Pot. Sadism and nihilism usually do co-exist, probably; Hitler's generals gossiped early on in his
aggressive exploits that he must have some sexual fetish that led him to take the country to war without adequate
preparion.) With the USSR gone, the neocons theorize that, because of the size and strength of the U.S. military,
it no longer needs allies; the U.S. instead needs and intends to be able to intimidate everyone, to deny
military parity even to closest allies by, for example, unilaterally militarizing space. Their view: the U.S.
is the only pole, for now, in an essentially unipolar world, and had better take advantage of that fact fast, to
conquer and extract resources and establish a permanent regime of exploitation with no rivals (before any rival
emerges). 9/11 took place in order to gain support for funding massive rearmament in order to carry out these
conquests. The main potential rival, China, is the ultimate target of the series of attacks planned on
Afghanistan, Iraq, Iran, N. Korea. Please note the plans (as in the discussion of the need for a "new Pearl
Harbor," framed as though it's going to happen the way the weather does, by forces that can be predicted but for
which no responsibility is acknowledged) for the development of biological weapons that can target specific
ethnic groups.
I agree with you that Cheney et al represent a danger to human civilization and viability perhaps even more
serious than Hitler. Even Hitler, however, did not consciously intend to wipe out Germany or civilization, in
fact the Nazis confiscated, catalogued and repatriated many important cultural artifacts. He wanted world
domination, and thought the way to get it was to consolidate power in his own hands by intimidating his opponents
through brutality (the way any gangster maintains control of his organization and territory). Hitler
overestimated his strategic prowess, that's all, as did many of his generals, whom he also succeeded in
intimidating with a string of military "successes" for the first third or so of the war largely consisting in his
enemies' failing to defend themselves (e.g. Czechoslovakia, which was likely well enough fortified to have
defeated Hitler's unprepared invading force, had it engaged them; and Austria, where Hitler was popular.) (Remind
you of the current celebrations of the "success" of the "surge," intimidating the Dems out of opposition to
further expansion of the war?) (By the way, don't think I'm any authority on WWII; I've just been browsing in a
couple of onine Hitler bios and extracts of bios the last couple of days.)
As for the U.S. funding the Sunnis and Shia, that is nothing exceptional. The U.S. funded both sides of the Iraq/
Iran war throughout the conflagration, deliberately alternating sides to keep the conflict going. Empires always
aim to divide and conquer, and false flag operations to get people fighting eachother are an old game: if
they're not afraid of each other, why would the Sunnia and Shia allow the U.S. to remain? They would unite to
drive the U.S. out, and then the U.S. would lose those permanent bases and long-term military control of the
resource that will enable the intended domination of Europe (again, I'm just citing "Rebuilding America's
Defenses." Besides, only through war can the U.S. economy survive, dependent as it is on arms exports. So our
"national interest" as the neocons view (and profit from) it depends on fanning global flames of hatred. And has
for a long time. "Stability" and "peace" are not in the interests of our oil or military-industrial complex,
only of smaller manufacturing factions. The price of oil, and oil profits, are highest during middle east wars.
And, obviously, armaments are best sold to nations embarking on or enmeshed in war.
Julie
Thanks, Julie:
You write:
This verges on > saying they just have horns--they're just an incarnation of old
Beelzebub himself. Which, of course, verges on pure religious anti-semitism.
First, that's my point -- that they are human, not devils or otherworldly beings with horns.
I wonder if you'll recall that early in the Reagan administration there was a bunch of talk
about nuclear war fighting. These were human beings but they were self destructive, suicidal, like Hitler,
and wanted to bring everything down with them. These are the people who are now in power.
One of my friends shares this belief. Right after 9/11 when the death toll was thought to be higher, he said: we
used 2 nukes for Pearl Harbor, we should use 6 nukes on these guys. There are people like that and they are in
the White House.
What can be gained by attacking Iran? And that's the reason they want to attack it.
Second: I don't follow you when you speak of the anti semitism connection. Feel free to explain.
You write:
No, it makes much more sense to assume that Israel believes that by destroying the friends of its enemies,
Israel will have more influence in the region.
More influence in the region? Hmmm. What does that mean? Israel has the maximum possible
influence in the region. So why are they demanding an attack on Iran? Because, a la Orwell, that is how leaders,
especially weak leaders stay in power and fend off internal challenges. However, it's now gotten to the point,
especially with Bush in the White House where by doing what comes natural, creating wars and tension, they
are threatening their own existence, which is exactly what Bush and Cheney want: maximum suffering everywhere,
just like Hitler.
Basically, the evidence is that there's no profit in what they are doing: that everything they
are doing and have done leads to endless war and destruction. Needless to say, it's easier to
see this if one believes that they planned and executed 9/11.
Here's what I wrote to another on my blog on their drive for destruction:
One question that Walter Karp brilliantly answers in Indispensable Enemies is: how do we know that their
intention is destruction. Answer: By their deeds ye shall know them.
Here’s how Karp puts it.
When it can be established that a number of political acts work in concert to produce a certain result, the
presumption is strong that the actors were aiming at the result in question. When it can be shown, in addition,
that the actors have an interest in producing those results, the presumption becomes a fair certainty.
Ronald
***
Post a Comment