The massive surge of COVID-19 infections in Israel, one of the most vaccinated countries on earth, is nothing less than a disaster. The Israel vaccine crisis should be a warning to the rest of the world.
Earlier in April, the Israeli Peoples Committee (IPC), a civilian body made of leading Israeli health experts, published its report into the Pfizer vaccine’s side effects indicating damage to almost every system in the human body.
If the findings by IPC were genuine, then Pfizer vaccine was linked to more deaths in Israel than AstraZeneca’s in the whole of Europe.
In June, there were several days with zero new COVID infections in Israel. The country launched its national vaccination campaign in December last year and has one of the highest vaccination rates in the world, with 80 percent of citizens above the age of 12 fully inoculated.
COVID, most Israelis thought, had been defeated. All restrictions were lifted and Israelis went back to crowded partying and praying in mask-free venues.
Fast forward two months later: Israel reported 9,831 new diagnosed cases on Tuesday, a hairbreadth away from the worst daily figure ever recorded in the country—10,000—at the peak of the third wave.
More than 350 people have died of the disease in the first three weeks of August. In a Sunday press conference, the directors of seven public hospitals announced that they could no longer admit any coronavirus patients.
With 670 COVID-19 patients requiring critical care, their wards are overflowing and staff are at breaking point.
After vaccinating almost the entire country, now Israel is facing a major disaster.
“I don’t want to frighten you,” coronavirus czar Dr. Salman Zarka told the Israeli parliament this week. “But this is the data. Unfortunately, the numbers don’t lie ” reported The Daily Beast.
Israel vaccinated its population almost exclusively with the Pfizer/BioNTech vaccine.
But in early July, with citizens over the age of 60 almost completely vaccinated, Israeli scientists began observing a worrisome rise in infections—if not in severe illness and death—among the double-vaccinated.
Now, in order to resolve the vaccine-induced crisis caused by the failure of the two jabs, Israel again wants to vaccinate its population with booster shots.
As of this week, all Israelis over 30 will be eligible to receive booster shots. By the end of the month, they are expected to be universally available to anyone over the age of 12 who received their second vaccine five months or more ago.
Israel will then reconfigure its Green Passports, granting them only to the triple-vaccinated, and limiting their validity to six months.
In anticipation of this change, the number of unvaccinated Israelis getting their first shots has tripled since the beginning of August.
Former Congressman Ron Paul has highlighted this week that a handful of mainstream media articles have actually begun to break ranks in terms of questioning key aspects of vaccine effectiveness and mandates, particularly when it comes to the controversial boosters now being widely proposed. “Even mainstream media is now asking big questions about the vaccines” Wednesday’s Liberty Report featured. A couple of recent headlines in Bloomberg and BBC were unexpected in terms the criticism reflected and somewhat skeptical pushback against the ‘consensus narrative’. Ron Paul (@RonPaul) August 23, 2021
The first news article that Congressman Paul and co-host Daniel McAdams highlight is from Bloomberg.
Here’s how the very unexpected Bloomberg article, which was published this past weekend, began:
Anecdotes tell us what the data can’t: Vaccinated people appear to be getting the coronavirus at a surprisingly high rate. But exactly how often isn’t clear, nor is it certain how likely they are to spread the virus to others.
Though it is evident vaccination still provides powerful protection against the virus, there’s growing concern that vaccinated people may be more vulnerable to serious illness than previously thought.
There’s growing concern that vaccinated people may be more vulnerable to serious illness from the Covid delta variant than previously thought https://t.co/R6HsDJu9p0
It is now a serious question that has implications for whether children should ever be vaccinated. And whether we use the virus or booster shots to top up immunity in adults. Both have become contentious issues.
“We could be digging ourselves into a hole, for a very long time, where we think we can only keep Covid away by boosting every year,” Prof Eleanor Riley, an immunologist from the University of Edinburgh, told me.
A mere month or more ago such statements found in these couple of mainstream media articles would get a person possibly suspended from Facebook or Twitter.
But they underscore just how ‘experimental’ the whole scenario is, despite governments in a number of places now mandating COVID-19 vaccines, with boosters just around the corner and already being implemented in some places (with Israel previously being the first) on a mass scale.
Health experts warn not to jump the gun—or line—in taking a third dose. https://t.co/2Fqh0sfv4z
Even The Daily Beast, which has spent much of the pandemic shaming the ‘vaccine hesitant’ is now admitting that “ultra-vaxxed” Israel is now seeing numbers of infections skyrocket…
“I don’t want to frighten you,” COVID-19 czar Dr. Salman Zarka told the Israeli parliament. “But this is the data. Unfortunately, the numbers don’t lie.”
A massive surge of infections in ultra-vaxxed Israel is pointing to a complicated path ahead. https://t.co/ZVwdlLrxQL
As a tsunami of crocodile tears engulfs Western politicians, history is suppressed. More than a generation ago, Afghanistan won its freedom, which the United States, Britain and their “allies” destroyed.
In 1978, a liberation movement led by the People’s Democratic Party of Afghanistan (PDPA) overthrew the dictatorship of Mohammad Daud, the cousin of King Zahir Shar. It was an immensely popular revolution that took the British and Americans by surprise.
Foreign journalists in Kabul, reported the New York Times, were surprised to find that “nearly every Afghan they interviewed said [they were] delighted with the coup.” The Wall Street Journal reported that “150,000 persons… marched to honour the new flag… the participants appeared genuinely enthusiastic.”
The Washington Post reported that “Afghan loyalty to the government can scarcely be questioned.” Secular, modernist and, to a considerable degree, socialist, the government declared a programme of visionary reforms that included equal rights for women and minorities. Political prisoners were freed and police files publicly burned.
Under the monarchy, life expectancy was 35; one in three children died in infancy. Some 90% of the population was illiterate. The new government introduced free medical care. A mass literacy campaign was launched.
For women, the gains had no precedent; by the late 1980s, half the university students were women, and women made up 40% of Afghanistan’s doctors, 70% of its teachers and 30% of its civil servants.
So radical were the changes that they remain vivid in the memories of those who benefited. Saira Noorani, a female surgeon who fled Afghanistan in 2001, recalled:
“Every girl could go to high school and university. We could go where we wanted and wear what we liked… We used to go to cafes and the cinema to see the latest Indian films on a Friday… it all started to go wrong when the Mujahedin started winning… these were the people the West supported.”
For the United States, the problem with the PDPA government was that it was supported by the Soviet Union. Yet it was never the “puppet” derided in the West, neither was the coup against the monarchy “Soviet backed,” as the American and British press claimed at the time.
President Jimmy Carter’s secretary of state, Cyrus Vance, later wrote in his memoirs: “We had no evidence of any Soviet complicity in the coup.”
In the same administration was Zbigniew Brzezinski, Carter’s national security adviser, a Polish émigré and fanatical anti-communist and moral extremist whose enduring influence on American presidents expired only with his death in 2017.
On July 3, 1979, unknown to the American people and Congress, Carter authorised a $500 million “covert action” programme to overthrow Afghanistan’s first secular, progressive government. This was code-named by the CIA Operation Cyclone.
The $500 million bought, bribed and armed a group of tribal and religious zealots known as the Mujahedin. In his semi-official history, Washington Post reporter Bob Woodward wrote that the CIA spent $70 million on bribes alone. He describes a meeting between a CIA agent known as ‘Gary’ and a warlord called Amniat-Melli:
“Gary placed a bundle of cash on the table: $500,000 in one-foot stacks of $100 bills. He believed it would be more impressive than the usual $200,000, the best way to say we’re here, we’re serious, here’s money, we know you need it… Gary would soon ask CIA headquarters for and receive $10 million in cash.”
Recruited from all over the Muslim world, America’s secret army was trained in camps in Pakistan run by Pakistani intelligence, the CIA and Britain’s MI6. Others were recruited at an Islamic College in Brooklyn, New York – within sight of the doomed Twin Towers. One of the recruits was a Saudi engineer called Osama Bin Laden.
The aim was to spread Islamic fundamentalism in Central Asia and destabilise and eventually destroy the Soviet Union.
In August 1979, the US Embassy in Kabul reported that “the United States’ larger interests… would be served by the demise of the PDPA government, despite whatever setbacks this might mean for future social and economic reforms in Afghanistan.”
Read again the words above I have italicised. It is not often that such cynical intent is spelt out as clearly. The US was saying that a genuinely progressive Afghan government and the rights of Afghan women could go to hell.
Six months later, the Soviets made their fatal move into Afghanistan in response to the American-created jihadist threat on their doorstep. Armed with CIA-supplied Stinger missiles and celebrated as “freedom fighters” by Margaret Thatcher, the Mujahedin eventually drove the Red Army out of Afghanistan.
Calling themselves the Northern Alliance, the Mujahedin were dominated by warlords who controlled the heroin trade and terrorised rural women. The Taliban were an ultra-puritanical faction, whose mullahs wore black and punished banditry, rape and murder but banished women from public life.
In the 1980s, I made contact with the Revolutionary Association of the Women of Afghanistan, known as RAWA, which had tried to alert the world to the suffering of Afghan women. During the Taliban time, they concealed cameras beneath their burqas to film evidence of atrocities, and did the same to expose the brutality of the Western-backed Mujahedin. ‘Marina’ of RAWA told me, “We took the videotape to all the main media groups, but they didn’t want to know…”
In 1996, the enlightened PDPA government was overrun. The president, Mohammad Najibullah, had gone to the United Nations to appeal to for help. On his return, he was hanged from a street light.
“I confess that [countries] are pieces on a chessboard,” said Lord Curzon in 1898, “upon which is being played out a great game for the domination of the world.”
The Viceroy of India was referring in particular to Afghanistan. A century later, Prime Minister Tony Blair used slightly different words.
“This is a moment to seize,” he said following 9/11. “The kaleidoscope has been shaken. The pieces are in flux. Soon they will settle again. Before they do, let us re-order this world around us.”
On Afghanistan, he added this: “We will not walk away [but ensure] some way out of the poverty that is your miserable existence.”
Blair echoed his mentor, President George W. Bush, who spoke to the victims of his bombs from the Oval Office: “The oppressed people of Afghanistan will know the generosity of America. As we strike military targets, we will also drop food, medicine and supplies to the starving and suffering…”
Almost every word was false. Their declarations of concern were cruel illusions for an imperial savagery “we” in the West rarely recognise as such.
In 2001, Afghanistan was stricken and depended on emergency relief convoys from Pakistan. As the journalist Jonathan Steele reported, the invasion indirectly caused the deaths of some 20,000 people as supplies to drought victims stopped and people fled their homes.
Some 18 months later, I found unexploded American cluster bombs in the rubble of Kabul which were often mistaken for yellow relief packages dropped from the air. They blew the limbs off foraging, hungry children.
In the village of Bibi Maru, I watched a woman called Orifa kneel at the graves of her husband, Gul Ahmed, a carpet weaver, and seven other members of her family, including six children, and two children who were killed next door.
An American F-16 aircraft had come out of a clear blue sky and dropped a Mk82 500-pound bomb on Orifa’s mud, stone and straw house. Orifa was away at the time. When she returned, she gathered the body parts.
Months later, a group of Americans came from Kabul and gave her an envelope with fifteen notes: a total of $15. “Two dollars for each of my family killed,” she said.
The invasion of Afghanistan was a fraud. In the wake of 9/11, the Taliban sought to distant themselves from Osama Bin Laden. They were, in many respects, an American client with which the administration of Bill Clinton had done a series of secret deals to allow the building of a $3 billion natural gas pipeline by a US oil company consortium.
In high secrecy, Taliban leaders had been invited to the US and entertained by the CEO of the Unocal company in his Texas mansion and by the CIA at its headquarters in Virginia. One of the deal-makers was Dick Cheney, later George W. Bush’s vice president.
In 2010, I was in Washington and arranged to interview the mastermind of Afghanistan’s modern era of suffering, Zbigniew Brzezinski. I quoted to him his autobiography in which he admitted that his grand scheme for drawing the Soviets into Afghanistan had created “a few stirred up Muslims.”
“Do you have any regrets?” I asked.
“Regrets! Regrets! What regrets?”
When we watch the current scenes of panic at Kabul airport, and listen to journalists and generals in distant TV studios bewailing the withdrawal of “our protection,” isn’t it time to heed the truth of the past so that all this suffering never happens again?
With the Taliban back in charge in Afghanistan, methinks we will hear pretty soon about 9/11, the fabricated pretext for their overthrow twenty years ago. They have never been given a chance to defend themselves. When the time will come for a public statement, we might get a glimpse of Chinese officials in the background. They will point the finger at the U.S., who will react with intensified anti-Chinese propaganda. New developments are to be expected anyway. Here is my contribution for this hopeful twentieth anniversary.
James Hepburn concluded his 1968 book Farewell America with those words: “President Kennedy’s assassination was the work of magicians. It was a stage trick, complete with accessories and fake mirrors, and when the curtain fell, the actors, and even the scenery disappeared.”[1]
9/11 was also a stage trick of magicians—the same company, I believe. Not only did they make New York’s tallest skyscrapers vanish into a cloud of smoke with the magic word “Osama bin Laden”. They also made planes appear and then disappear. Not just UA93, swallowed by the earth, or AA77, vaporized into the Pentagon. I mean also UA175, which supposedly crashed into the South Tower (let’s leave aside AA11, whose single ghostly image was supernaturally captured by the twice Emmy-Awarded Naudet brothers).
Can a Boeing 767, essentially a hollow aluminum tube, cut through massive steel columns, wings and all, without even slowing down? If you haven’t seriously thought about it, here is a good place to start: https://911planeshoax.com/ . For my part, I was first convinced that no real plane were involved in 9/11 by Ace Baker’s 2012 film 9/11 The Great American Psy-Opera(begin with chapter 6 at 2:27). I made the following 18-minute collation of the most telling extracts:
Richard Hall has studied all the videos of the plane crash into the South Tower, and also concluded that there was no plane crash. However, he has pointed to a shortcoming in Ace Baker’s theory: it cannot explain why, in the fifty-or-so videos showing UA175 crashing into the South Tower, the trajectory of the aircraft conforms to the official data provided by the National Transport Safety Board in its “Radar Data Impact Speed Study” report. Something more than video compositing is involved. In 2012, Hall therefore proposed an alternative theory in this 23-minute video:
Just like the question of the technology used to bring down the towers, the question of the technology used to fake the planes is still not completely answered. Yet I think that, on the basis of what we know, the non-existence of flights AA11 and UA175 (including their passengers, of course) is a far more reasonable hypothesis than their existence.
The issue does matter, because the murder weapon is often the surest clue leading to the murderer. If there were no planes, we don’t need to waste energy searching for what kind of planes they were and who or what flew them. We just need to ask: Who controls what we see on television? And we know the answer to that question, don’t we?
I am not going to argue that 9/11 was essentially a Zionist coup. I assume that most Unz Review readers have already reached that conclusion. I refer those who haven’t to Christopher Bollyn’s work (his latest book is a good introduction) or to my own contribution, “9/11 was an Israeli Job”. What I want to do here is shed some light on the dark soul that plotted that incredibly daring operation.
We all understand that 9/11 was the brainchild of a conspiratorial network that included the crypto-Israelis who called themselves Neoconservatives—deceptively, for there is nothing “conservative” about them. What they wanted is trigger “World War IV” (they count the Cold War as WWIII, because it provided the context for the Six-Day War that doubled Israel’s size). “World War IV” was first proclaimed in November 20, 2001 by Neocon Eliot Cohen in an article for the Wall Street Journal. Then in February 2002 Norman Podhoretz wrote an article for Commentary titled “How to Win World War IV,” later expanded into the book World War IV: The Long Struggle Against Islamofascism (2007). In 2004, the subject of a Washington conference by Eliot Cohen attended by Podhoretz and Wolfowitz was: “World War IV: Why We Fight, Whom We Fight, How We Fight.”[2]
WWIV was definitely the purpose of 9/11. Behind their public image, the Neocons are a Cabal comparable to the “Parushim” that intrigued for WWI, with influential members like Supreme Court Justice Louis Brandeis (1856–1941) and his patron Samuel Untermeyer (1858-1940). Sarah Schmidt, professor of Jewish history at the Hebrew University of Jerusalem, documented that initiates into the Order of the Parushim had to declare themselves “soldiers in the army of Zion,” and swear: “I hereby vow myself, my life, my fortune, and my honor to the restoration of the Jewish nation.”[3] After having reaped the Balfour Declaration from the blood and ashes of WWI, the same cabal pushed for WWII, with the same Zionist goal almost transparently announced on the front-page of the British Daily Express, March 24, 1933: “Judea Declares War on Germany” (Judea was one of the names envisioned for their new State). After WWII, they made every effort to blow on the embers of the Cold War in the Middle East, and assassinated Kennedy who wanted to end it.
As Seymour Hersh pointed out in The New Yorker, May 12, 2003, the core members of the Neocons are former students of Leo Strauss or students of his students (the New York Times renamed them “Leo-Cons”). So there is a good chance that knowing about Strauss’s thinking can help us make sense of 9/11. And there is as much deception in what is being said about Strauss as there is about 9/11.
Leo Strauss (1899-1973) was a German Jewish scholar who moved to New York in 1937, and taught political science at the University of Chicago from 1949 to 1969. There are diverging interpretations of his political philosophy: in Leo Strauss: Man of Peace(Cambridge UP, 2014), Robert Howse claims that the Neocons are poor students of Strauss, and that they misread their own warlike fantasies between Strauss’s lines. Catherine and Michael Zuckert, two students of Strauss, make him a passionate lover of American Democracy in The Truth about Leo Strauss: Political Philosophy and American Democracy (University of Chicago Press, 2008). The titles of these two books somehow remind me of Arlen “Magic Bullet” Specter’s autobiography, Passion for Truth. There is as much chance to find “the truth about Leo Strauss” in a book written by Chicago Straussians as there is to find “the truth about 9/11” in the 9/11 Commission Report.
Another of Strauss’s apologists, Benjamin Wurgaft, has absolved Strauss from the Neocons’ disastrous legacy by claiming that “the Strauss we know from his writings cautioned against applying political philosophy directly to public policy. . . . Real thinkers, thought Strauss, should avoid that world and its tendency to compromise the quest for philosophical truth.”[4] That is laughable: what kind of political philosopher would discourage his students from engaging in politics? Even if Strauss did, it is obvious that his disciples thought he didn’t, and what concerns us here is what the Straussians learned from Strauss.
If Strauss is not a peace-loving Jew, he must necessarily be a warmongering Nazi. That’s how William Altman, another Jewish author, portrays him in The German Stranger: Leo Strauss and National Socialism(Lexington, 2012). This is the equivalent of John Hankey’s effort to blame JFK’s assassination on the Nazis in his cartoon film Dark Legacy (2009).
I have read only bits of these books. My understanding of Strauss owes more to Leo Strauss and the American Right(1999) by Shadia Drury, whose arguments are conveniently summarized in her online interview by Danny Postel. I found Drury’s analysis to be a good starting point (I haven’t read her earlier book, The Political Ideas of Leo Strauss, which seems to have little more to offer), but, with only one entry for “Israel” in her index, it suffers from a huge blind spot, already evident from its title and its cover. I turned to reading some of Strauss’s key works in the hope of learning what Drury conceals. I have, with great difficulty, gone through half a dozen of Strauss’s books. My general conclusion is that Strauss is a super-Machiavellian pan-Zionist, something that no scholar, not even Drury, would dare say, but which goes a long a way towards explaining 9/11. This is what I wish to illustrate here.
What Drury correctly grasped, I think, it the secretive and elitist nature of Strauss’s teaching. In print, Strauss expressed his most controversial views only cryptically by attributing them to past philosophers—often incorrectly, according to his detractors. He shared openly his true philosophy only orally with his close students, who happened to be exclusively Jewish (as Drury fails to remark). He took model on Moses Maimonides, whose “secrets”, he wrote, “may only be explained in private and only to such individuals as possess both theoretical and political wisdom as well as the capacity of both understanding and using allusive speech.”[5] In What is Political Philosophy?(1959), Strauss explains that philosophy or science seek “knowledge”, and therefore “endangers society,” whose element is “opinion”. “Hence philosophy or science must remain the preserve of a small minority”.
Philosophers or scientists who hold this view about the relationship of philosophy or science and society are driven to employ a peculiar manner of writing which would enable to reveal what they regard as the truth to the few, without endangering the unqualified commitment of the many to the opinions on which society rests. They will distinguish between the true teachings as the esoteric teaching and the socially useful teaching as the exoteric teaching; whereas the exoteric teaching is meant to be easily accessible to every reader, the esoteric teaching discloses itself only to the very careful and well-trained readers after long and concentrated study.[6]
In Persecution and the Art of Writing, Strauss emphasizes the need for the wise to conceal their views, in order to protect the masses from the ugliness of the truth (yes, Straussian truth is ugly), and to protect themselves from reprisals.
Strauss’s “secret elitism” might arguably be a good thing if the elites he had in mind were really the “wise men”. Strauss probably thought so, but he also thought, obviously, that only Jews need apply, because the circle of his disciples was exclusively Jewish. He probably felt, like Samuel Untermeyer in 1933, that “the Jews are the aristocrats of the world.”
In several books on Plato, Strauss misused Plato’s concept of the “noble lie” (The Republic) to endorse the use of mass deception in politics. “There is no doubt,” Shadia Drury said, “that Strauss’s reading of Plato entails that the philosophers should return to the cave and manipulate the images (in the form of media, magazines, newspapers).” Quoting from Strauss’s The Argument and the Action of Plato’s Laws, Drury says that, “the real Platonic solution as understood by Strauss is the covert rule of the wise.”[7] As Strauss’s student Abram Shulsky wrote in “Leo Strauss and the World of Intelligence” (1999), for Strauss, “deception is the norm in political life”[8]—a rule that Shulsky applied as director of the Office of Special Plans, responsible for fabricating false intelligence on Saddam’s “weapons of mass destruction”.
Strauss’s insistence on the necessity for ruling elites to use lies and myths in order to control the masses is a lesson well learned by the Neocons. It is under Strauss’s inspiration that Philip Zelikow, before being appointed Executive Director of the 9/11 Commission, specialized in the art of crafting “public myths” by “‘searing’ or ‘molding’ events [that] take on ‘transcendent’ importance and, therefore, retain their power even as the experiencing generation passes from the scene” (his own words, as quoted in Wikipedia). In December 1998, he co-signed an article for Foreign Affairs entitled “Catastrophic Terrorism,” in which he speculated on what would have happened if the 1993 WTC bombing (already blamed on bin Laden) had been done with a nuclear bomb:
Such an act of catastrophic terrorism would be a watershed event in American history. It could involve loss of life and property unprecedented in peacetime and undermine America’s fundamental sense of security, as did the 1949 Soviet atomic bomb test in 1949. Like Pearl Harbor, this event would divide our past and future into a before and after. The United States might respond with draconian measures, scaling back civil liberties, allowing wider surveillance of citizens, detention of suspects, and use of deadly force.[9]
In Drury’s words, “Strauss thinks that a political order can be stable only if it is united by an external threat; and following Machiavelli, he maintained that if no external threat exists, then one has to be manufactured.”[10] This provided the justification for the Neocons’ invention of the “Clash of Civilizations” to replace the Cold War.
Strauss viewed nations as shaped entirely by their “regimes”, and is at the origin of the Neocons’ obsession with “regime change,” seen as a way to transform a nation into a totally different one—peoples being little more than shapeless lumps of clay. According to the Straussians Catherine and Michael Zuckert (read here), “the greatest threat comes from states that do not share American democratic values. Changing these regimes and causing the progress of democratic values constitutes [in the words of Irving Kristol] ‘the best method of reinforcing security (of the United States) and peace’ Thus, it is alleged, Straussians endorse a Wilsonian agenda of an active, even militant foreign policy aimed at ‘regime change’ and, in principle, universal implantation of liberal democracies throughout the world.” That is, of course, the exoteric Straussian sermon for American mass consumption. Even the Zuckerts have to concede: “One of the very difficult questions thrown up by the composite view of Strauss we have just summarized concerns the relation between the Wilsonian idealist side and the Machiavellian realist side. There is, to say the least, a tension between the two.”[11]
Strauss marveled at the power of television and cinema for shaping mass public opinion and emotion. He was an amateur critic of “Western” movies, a genre he regarded as a successful case of national mythic construction based on a clear-cut distinction between the good guys (us) and the bad guys (them). According to his pupil Stanley Rosen (speaking in Adam Curtis’s BBC documentary The Power of Nightmares, first episode at 8:49), Strauss’s favorite television show was the long-running Western Gunsmoke. This show “had a salutary effect on the American public, because it showed the conflict between good and evil in a way that would be immediately intelligible to everyone.” It is no coincidence that in 1980, the Neoconservatives bet all their chips on Hollywood Western actor Ronald Reagan, a man who once summarized his political vision in these terms: “The difference between right and wrong seems as clear as the white hats that the cowboys in Hollywood Western always wore so you’d know right from the beginning who was the good guy.”[12]
Strauss was well aware, like Neal Gabler, that Hollywood culture in general was the creation of Jewish émigrés from Eastern Europe[13]. In the documentary Hollywoodism: Jews, Movies and the American Dream (1998), Gabler says that, “the grand irony of all of Hollywood is that Americans come to define themselves by the shadow America that was created by Eastern European Jewish immigrants.”
Strauss’s attachment to Judaism is probably the most esoteric part of his teaching, in the sense that it is the least public. Even Drury remains very elusive about it: she sticks to the fiction that the Neocons are American right-wing imperialists. She takes Irving Kristol’s self-professed American “nationalism” at face value, and she ignores that some of the redactors or close associates of the Project for a New American Century also wrote secret reports to Benjamin Netanyahu recommending an aggressive policy of territorial expansion.[14]
Drury quotes Harry Jaffa, one of Strauss’s first Ph.D. students, as saying that “America is the Zion that will light up all the world.”[15] She definitely misses the irony and the cryptic meaning: America will set the world on fire for Zion. That is what the Neocons have really been up to.
Here we have an illustration of the two-storied lie, a technique familiar to those that Schopenhauer called “the Great Masters of the Lie” (as quoted by his most famous Austrian disciple). Having lifted the veil of the Straussians’ “exoteric” lie (the myth of America versus Evil), Drury is convinced that she sees their “esoteric” truth (America needs the myth), when in fact it is just a more sophisticated lie. The truth is still one level under.
With his BBC documentary The Power of Nightmares, Adam Curtis is another example of an intellectual who barely scratches the thin surface of Neocon propaganda, and believes the thick layer of lies under it. Curtis believes that, during the Cold War, Strauss and the Straussians wanted to provide Americans with a mythic evil enemy, as a way “to rescue the country from moral decay, . . . to re-engage the public in a grand vision of America’s destiny, that would give meaning and purpose to their lives.” Of course, Curtis then has to explain why, under this lofty patriotic rationale, the Neocons drew the United States into illegitimate wars causing irremediable damage to the nation. Curtis couldn’t convince himself that the Neocons start world wars just to lift up Americans’ spirit. So he speculates instead that the Neocons are so stupid that they fell for their own lies: “what had started out as the kind of myth that Leo Strauss had said was necessary for the American people increasingly came to be seen as the truth by the neoconservatives. They began to believe their own fiction” (episode 1). And again in episode 2: “in the 1970s . . . Paul Wolfowitz, Richard Perle, and other neoconservatives had set out to reassert the myth of America as a unique country, whose destiny was to struggle against evil throughout the world. Now in power, they had come to believe this myth. They saw themselves as revolutionaries who were going to transform the world, starting with the defeat of the Evil Empire.”[16]
The Neocons are so self-delusional, according to Curtis, that they were deceived by their own lie a second time, ending up believing in the phony “War on Terror” that they had made up initially for the sole purpose of keeping the American morale high after the fall of the USSR. They had decided to create the fantasy of “a powerful network of evil, controlled from the center by bin Laden from his lair in Afghanistan . . . because it fitted with their vision of America’s unique destiny to fight an epic battle against the forces of evil throughout the world.” But again, according to Curtis, the Neocons started believing their own lie, which led them to innocently destroy the Middle East and American democracy in the process: “the neoconservatives were now increasingly locked into this fantasy, and next they set out to uncover the network in America itself.”
I wonder if Curtis himself believes what he is saying, or just pretends to. Whatever the case, it shows the efficiency of the two-storied lie. It is a dialectical strategy: the first-level liars must be able to count on the second-level liars and their useful idiots—the controlled opposition—to cover them while pretending to expose them. For example, Israel-firsters need a Chomsky to shield them from the accusation of treason and tell Americans with half-a-brain that, whatever bad Israel does, she does it because America makes her do it (“The Fateful Triangle” theory).
In the case of 9/11, Israel is hiding behind two false flags: under the first-level lie—“Al-Qaeda did it”—was planted the second-level lie (or half-lie)—“America did it”—, as the late and blessed Victor Thorn explained in 2011:
In essence, the “9-11 truth movement” was created prior to Sept. 11, 2001 as a means of suppressing news relating to Israeli complicity. By 2002–2003, “truthers” began appearing at rallies holding placards that read “9-11 was an inside job.” Initially, these signs provided hope for those who didn’t believe the government and mainstream media’s absurd cover stories. But then an awful realization emerged: The slogan “9-11 was an inside job” was quite possibly the greatest example of Israeli propaganda ever devised.”
The basic rule of all those tricks can be formulated like this: lie big to the masses, but have a smaller lie ready for the thinking few. The reason the big lie works best for the masses, by the way, was explained in 1925 by a famous Austrian anti-Semite:
In the primitive simplicity of their minds, they [the great masses] will more easily fall victim to a large lie than a small lie, since they sometimes tell petty lies themselves, but would be ashamed to tell a lie that was too big. They would never consider telling a lie of such magnitude themselves, or knowing that it would require such impudence, they would not consider it possible for it to be told by others. Even after being enlightened and shown that the lie is a lie, they will continue to doubt and waver for a long time and will still believe there must be some truth behind it somewhere, and there must be some other explanation. For this reason, some part of the most bold and brazen lie is sure to stick. This is a fact that all the great liars and liars’ societies in this world know only too well and use regularly.
The Straussian deception must be understood as two-storied. Whoever thinks the Straussians’ exoteric fantasies are motivated by some form of concern for America (her values, her empire, etc.) is victim of their esoteric lies. The key for understanding the essence of Straussianism is the word that Curtis never pronounces in his three-hour documentary on the Straussians: Israel.
To get some insight into Strauss’s Zionism, we must turn to a primary source (that Drury, to her credit, mentions): his 1962 lecture at the Hillel Foundation, “Why We Remain Jews”, one of his recorded oral communications made accessible to the public in the 1990s.[17] Strauss begins his lecture by stating that, for once, “I will not beat around the bush in any respect.” Then he reveals that, “since a very, very early time the main theme of my reflections has been what is called the ‘Jewish question,’” which will come as a surprise to many. His main message to his American Jewish audience is: “return to the Jewish faith, return to the faith of our ancestors.”
Drury considers Strauss’s defense of the “Jewish faith” as a form of deception or hypocrisy, since Strauss is an avowed atheist and openly calls Judaism a “heroic delusion” and “a dream” (such as “no nobler dream was ever dreamt”). But the accusation is unfair, I think, because it neglects Strauss’s qualifications of “faith” and “dream”. First, Strauss clarifies that, by “faith”, he means not necessarily “belief”, but “fidelity, loyalty, piety in the old Latin sense of the word pietas.” Secondly, immediately after calling Judaism a “dream”, Strauss adds that, “dream is akin to aspiration. And aspiration is a kind of divination of an enigmatic vision.” Although he doesn’t elaborate, it is clear enough: to Strauss, Jewishness is not God-chosenness, but self-chosenness. This is a very common view among Jewish intellectuals, akin to the Kabbalistic notion that Yahweh is like the collective soul of the Jewish people. In an “Essay on the Jewish Soul” (1929), for instance, Isaac Kadmi-Cohen writes that, “divinity in Judaism is contained in the exaltation of the entity represented by the race.”[18] That is why Jews can be non-believers in God yet believers in Yahweh’s promise. When Drury criticizes Strauss for being “interested only in the political advantages of religion,”[19] she should know that it is not necessarily a betrayal of Jewish tradition. The notion that prophecy has a “political mission” (Strauss, Philosophy and Law) is self-evident to many secular Zionists.
The central passage in Strauss’s lecture “Why we remain Jews” is a long quotation of Nietzsche’s Dawn of Day aphorism 205, in which Nietzsche predicts that the Jews will become “the lords of Europe”. After eighteen centuries of training in Europe, says Nietzsche, “the psychic and spiritual resources of today’s Jews are extraordinary.” Among other strengths, “they have understood how to create a feeling of power and eternal vengeance out of the very trades that were left to them.” Because of this, says Nietzsche (as quoted by Strauss):
at some time Europe may fall like a perfectly ripe fruit into their hand, which only casually reaches out. In the meantime it is necessary for them to distinguish themselves in all the areas of European distinction and to stand among the first, until they will be far enough along to determine themselves that which distinguishes. Then they will be called the inventors and guides of the Europeans.
Strauss notes that “Europe” should now be replaced by “the West” in Nietzsche’s aphorism, and comments that it is “the most profound and radical statement on assimilation that I have read.” It may well be, in fact, the key to the Straussian agenda. Assimilation as dissimulation and as a long-term strategy for Jewish supremacism is the only assimilation that Strauss approves of.
In this same lecture, Strauss criticizes political Zionism as belonging to the wrong kind of assimilation, since it sought to create a nation like others. If Israel became a nation like others, Jewish identity would perish, because Jewish identity is based on the persecution inherent in the dispersion. Strauss calls for a “religious Zionism” that transcends the national project. He believes that Jews must continue to be a nation dispersed among other nations. Yet Strauss commends the State Israel for setting an example with its prohibition of mixed marriages, fulfilling “an act of national cleansing or purification”, “a reassertion of the difference between Jews and non-Jews.” Strauss also defended Israel’s State racism in the National Review: political Zionism, he wrote, “fulfilled a conservative function” by stemming the “tide of ‘progressive’ leveling of venerable ancestral differences.”[20]
Strauss’s emphasis on endogamy goes to the very heart of the Torah, which insists on the strict equality between monotheism and racial purity; committing idolatry (“serving other gods”) and marrying non-Jews are one and the same thing (e.g. Deuteronomy 7:3-4 and Numbers 25:1-2). All Jewish laws are essentially walls built around the sacred duty: keep the blood! “All is race—there is no other truth,” wrote another “assimilated” Jew.[21]
What Strauss says of other nations in relation to the Jewish nation also proves Strauss’s penetrating understanding and approval of biblical ideology: referring to “the anti-Judaism of late classical antiquity, when we . . . were accused by the pagan Romans of standing convicted of hatred of the human race,” he adds:
I contend that it was a very high compliment. And I will try to prove it. This accusation reflects an undeniable fact. For the human race consists of many nations or tribes or, in Hebrew, goyim. A nation is a nation by virtue of what it looks up to. In antiquity, a nation was a nation by virtue of its looking up to its gods. They did not have ideologies at that time; they did not have even ideas at that time. At the top, there were the gods. And now, our ancestors asserted a priori—that is to say, without looking at any of these gods—that these gods were nothings and abominations, that the highest things of any nation were nothings and abominations.
Strauss’s adherence to the biblical program of Jewish world domination is the least mentioned, but arguably the most important feature of Strauss’s esoteric teaching. The second most important feature is his Machiavellianism.
Strauss greatly admired Machiavelli, the fifteenth-century political philosopher who rejected the classical notion that virtue should be the foundation of power, and asserted that only the appearance of virtue counts, and that the successful prince must be a “great simulator” who “manipulates and cons people’s minds.” In his Thoughts on Machiavelli, Strauss distances himself from the trend of trying to downplay the immorality of the author of The Prince, and instead agrees with the “simple opinion” that regards his political theory as immoral. Relativizing Machiavelli’s immorality, said Strauss, “prevents one from doing justice to what is truly admirable in Machiavelli; the intrepidity of his thought, the grandeur of his vision, and the graceful subtlety of his speech.” Machiavelli’s thought is so revolutionary, Strauss believed, that its ultimate implications could not be spelled out: “Machiavelli does not go to the end of the road; the last part of the road must be travelled by the reader who understands what is omitted by the writer.” For this, Strauss is the guide, for “to discover from [Machiavelli’s] writings what he regarded as the truth is hard; it is not impossible.” Machiavelli’s truth is not a blinding light, but rather a bottomless abyss that only the accomplished philosopher can contemplate without turning into a beast: there is no afterlife, and neither good nor evil, and therefore the ruling elite need not be inhibited by morality. Machiavelli, according to Strauss, is a patriot of a superior kind because “he is more concerned with the salvation of his fatherland than with the salvation of his soul.” For Strauss, only nations can be eternal, since men have no individual soul; therefore, there are no moral limits to what a (Zionist) patriot can do for his nation.[22]
Zionism and Machiavellianism are such twin concepts in the Straussian outlook that Strauss’s disciple Michael Ledeen, a founding member of the Jewish Institute for National Security Affairs (JINSA), hypothesized that Machiavelli was as secret Jew. “Listen to his political philosophy, and you will hear the Jewish music,” wrote Ledeen, citing Machiavelli’s contempt for the nonviolent ethics of Jesus and his admiration for the pragmatism of Moses, who was able to kill thousands from his own tribe in order to establish his authority.[23]
Machiavelli’s crypto-Jewishness is plausible: his name could originate from the Hebrew Mashiah bé El, “Messiah of God.” In any case, his insight that fear is the most efficient means of governing is exactly what you would expect from a Levite. The threat of destruction in case of non-compliance to the Mosaic Law is a leitmotiv of the Torah:
And if, in spite of this, you will not listen to me but go against me, I shall go against you in fury and punish you seven times over for your sins. You will eat the flesh of your own sons, you will eat the flesh of your own daughters. I shall destroy your high places and smash your incense-altars; I shall pile your corpses on the corpses of your foul idols and shall reject you. I shall reduce your cities to ruins, etc. (Leviticus 26:27-31).
Fear of Yahweh’s wrath has been deeply internalized by the Jewish people, because it has always been the means by which the Jewish elites control their flock. The Holocaust religion is a secular version of Yahwism.
If a nation’s spirit results from the threat—real or imaginary—of its enemy, as Strauss believes, then Israel has the strongest spirit, because she sees the rest of the world as her enemies. The Jews are “the people chosen for universal hatred,” as proto-Zionist Leo Pinsker wrote in his booklet Auto-Emancipation (1882).[24] There is a dialectical complementarity between the perceived threat of extermination and the struggle for world domination, for the latter is the only way to overcome the former. This is the essence of the Jewish paranoia inoculated by the Bible.
In conclusion, Strauss has a very clear vision of Israel as a unique nation destined—by the most noble dream—to rule over other nations, and even destroy them spiritually, by all immoral means possible. We may call his vision Machiavellian pan-Zionism, or simply Jewish supremacism. Whatever the name, it is thoroughly biblical, as biblical as the political philosophy of David Ben-Gurion, the “father of the Jewish nation.” In 1962, the same year as Strauss’s lecture “Why We Remain Jews,” Ben-Gurion was whining to President Kennedy about the imminent destruction of his newborn nation by the Egyptian Nazis, but at the same time he was predicting in the magazine Look that, within 25 years, Jerusalem “will be the seat of the Supreme Court of Mankind, to settle all controversies among the federated continents, as prophesied by Isaiah.”[25] Indeed, Isaiah prophesied: “For the Law will issue from Zion and the word of Yahweh from Jerusalem. Then he will judge between the nations and arbitrate between many peoples” (2:3-4). In other words, Israel will rule the world.
Isaiah, the Zionists’ favorite prophet, also said: “the nation and kingdom that will not serve you will perish, and . . . will be utterly destroyed” (60:12); “You will suck the milk of nations, you will suck the wealth of kings” (60:16); “You will feed on the wealth of nations, you will supplant them in their glory” (61:6). This is the biblical blueprint of the Zionist World Order, also promised by Israel’s jealous devil in Deuteronomy: “devour all the peoples whom Yahweh your god puts at your mercy, show them no pity” (7:16); “he will raise you higher than every other nation he has made” (28:1); “You will make many nations your subjects, yet you will be subject to none” (28:12).
If we don’t dig into the biblical roots of Zionism, we cannot understand Zionism. Ben-Gurion often said that, “There can be no worthwhile political or military education about Israel without profound knowledge of the Bible.”[26] That statement should be taken seriously. If it is true for the Israeli leadership — and Benjamin Netanyahu would certainly not object —, then it is also true for all serious analysts: there can be no real understanding of Israel and its longtime goal, without knowledge of the Hebrew Bible. The Zionist conspiracy for world supremacy is written there in plain language.
Yahweh is a sociopathic god, and Yahweh is the god of Israel, therefore Israel is a sociopathic nation. This is the simple truth of Zionism, the equation from which 9/11 ultimately derives.
It’s the first time a high court of a European Member State has challenged the use of vaccine passports domestically.
Spain’s Supreme Court made waves last week by becoming the first judicial authority in Europe to rule against the use of covid passports to restrict access to public spaces — specifically hospitality businesses (bars, restaurants and nightclubs). It is not the first Spanish court to come out against vaccine passports but it is the most important. So far, only five of Spain’s 17 autonomous regions – the Canary Islands, Ceuta and Melilla, Andalusia, Cantabria and Galicia – have proposed using vaccine passports to restrict access to public spaces. And all have been rejected by local judges.
The EU’s Green Pass is a one-piece QR-code document that can be issued to a traveller in both paper and digital format. It is intended to prove that the holder has either received one of the four vaccines authorised by the European Medicine Agency (BioNTech-Pfizer’s, Moderna’s, AztraZeneca’s and Johnson &Johnson’s), has tested negative for Covid-19 in the last 48 hours or has been infected with Covid in the last six months and therefore has natural immunity. However, some countries such as France have chosen only to allow entry to travellers that are fully vaccinated.
Many government are also using the documents to limit access for unvaccinated citizens to public spaces and services with their own countries. But so far Spanish judges have challenged this trend, on the grounds that it would infringe on certain constitutionally recognised individual rights, such as the right to physical integrity and privacy, while also having limited impact on public health. The Supreme Courts of Andalusia and Ceuta and Melilla said the measures were also discriminatory. When the Supreme Court of Andalusia sided with local hospitality businesses in their appeal against the region’s proposed vaccine passport measures, the regional authority took the case to the national Supreme Court. And lost.
Economic considerations may have also played a part in the courts’ decision. Spain’s hospitality sector generates a huge amount of money and a huge number of jobs, especially during the peak tourist season (i.e., right now). The sector has already been through the grinder of last year’s three-month national lockdown as well as sporadic regional lockdowns. Even with the introduction of vaccine passports, overseas visitors continue to arrive in dribs and drabs. As was the case last year, it’s domestic demand that is keeping many businesses alive. And limiting that demand is likely to create even more economic pain.
Constitutional Clashes
But this is not the first time that Spain’s government and regional authorities have clashed with the judiciary over the management of the public health crisis. Since Spain ended its state of alarm on May 9th, the high courts in the Valencia region, the Balearic islands, Catalonia, the Canary Islands and other parts of Spain have prevented regional authorities from applying a range of anti-Covid restrictions, including curfews and limits on social gatherings, on the grounds that it’s unconstitutional to breach fundamental rights when there’s no longer a state of alarm.
Then, on July 14, Spain’s top judicial body, the Constitutional Court, delivered another hammer blow, by ruling that Spain’s coronavirus state of alarm had been unconstitutional all along. The government, it said, should instead have called for a state of emergency – which requires prior parliamentary approval – to curtail fundamental rights for the nationwide lockdown.
In its August 18 ruling, against using the Digital Covid Certificate to grant or deny access to nightlife venues, the Supreme Court said there wasn’t enough “substantial justification” for the requirement of a health pass in bars and nightclubs across the entire region of Andalusia, seeing it more as a “preventative measure” rather than a necessary action. Instead, it said the measure “restrictively affects basic elements of freedom of movement and the right of assembly.”
Interestingly, the Supreme Court also said that using vaccine passports to control access to public spaces and services may not even help prevent infections. In fact, it may exacerbate them, given that recent research has shown that people who have been vaccinated or previously infected with Covid-19 can still catch and spread the virus. As such, implementing a vaccine passport system does not protect others from infection, including those who gain access to a public space by presenting a negative result of a PCR test. Such a document, the court said, “only proves that at the time of the test these people were not carrying the active virus”.
By now it is clear, as Yves laid out meticulously on Friday, that the vaccines are not what they were cracked up to be. Their efficacy fades quickly and is particularly depleted against the Delta variant. Research has also shown that the virus loads of the vaccinated and the unvaccinated are almost identical with regard to the Delta variant. As such, if a vaccinated person and an unvaccinated person have roughly the same capacity to carry, shed and transmit the virus, particularly in its Delta form, what difference does implementing a vaccination passport, certificate or ID actually make to the spread of the virus?
This is a question that many of the people who attended the Boardmasters’ Music Festival in the UK may now be asking themselves. To attend the event they needed to prove, with their NHS Pass, a recent negative test, full vaccination or Covid infection in the past 180 days — in other words, almost exactly the same conditions required by the EU’s Green Pass. The event’s organizers seem to have done everything by the book yet roughly one week after the festival, almost 5,000 Covid cases had been potentially linked to the event. The city where it was held, Newquay, became England’s “Covid capital”, registering up to 1,110 cases per 100,000 people in the week ending August 14 — nearly four times the average rate in the country.
Fierce Public Opposition
In the wake of the Spanish Supreme Court’s ruling there is probably little point in any of Spain’s 17 regional governments even trying to use Covid health passes in their territories for any purpose other than travel abroad. If such measures were introduced, they would only be in force for a brief period before a court shelved them.
It’s a very different story across the rest of the EU. Even as the evidence grows that the current crop of vaccines are not very effective at limiting the spread of the Delta variant and that so-called “breakthrough cases” are not nearly as rare as the term would suggest, most governments are accelerating and expanding their use of vaccine passports and mandates. Twenty-two out of 27 EU Member States already require hospitality green passes or similar health passports to enter restaurants, bars, museums, libraries and other public places.
In France those without a pass are banned from the outside terraces of cafes, bars and restaurants. They are not even allowed to enter hospitals, apart from for emergency procedures. By the end of August many private-sector workers who serve the public have to be vaccinated. The jab will also become mandatory for all French health workers by Sept. 15. The government insists the pass is necessary to encourage vaccination uptake and avoid a fourth national lockdown. But for many protesters the new legislation represents everything a constitutional republic like France should stand against: authoritarian control, discrimination, denial of access to basic freedoms and services, education and healthcare.
Opposition among the vaccine hesitant remains fierce. For a sixth straight Saturday, hundreds of thousands of people turned out in towns and cities across France to vent their fury at the government’s increasingly repressive vaccine laws. If anything, the demonstrations are likely to intensify in the coming weeks, as students — often a vital cog in French protest movements — return to university and vaccine-reluctant public workers begin to contemplate life without an income.
Large demonstrations have also taken place in Italy, Greece and Germany. In Latvia’s capital, Riga, 5,000 people took to the streets on Wednesday night to protest government plans to make vaccination mandatory for certain professions and allow employers to fire workers who refuse to get jabbed. It was reported to be the largest demonstration in Latvia since 2009.
A Kafkaesque Twist
In Spain, meanwhile, everything is rather quiet. There are few protests against the vaccine passports, since their impact on daily life has not been felt. Most people over the age of 30 are quite happy to get vaccinated — so much so that Spain, with 67% of its population fully vaccinated, places fourth on Oxford University’s Our World in Data’s ranking of the world’s most vaccinated countries. What’s more, Spain is yet to see its vaccine campaign stall, as has already happened in countries such as the US, Israel, Germany and France.
Given that Spanish residents are getting vaccinated in such large numbers, there’s arguably even less need to use vaccine passports domestically. Fernando García López, the president of the Research Ethics Committee at the Carlos III Health Institute in Madrid, argues that is better to “convince rather than coerce, something that can polarize,” adding that in Spain, “there is no major anti-vaccination group against which we need to fight, as is happening in other places.
But that hasn’t stopped the passports from already creating a Kafkaesque nightmare for thousands of Spanish residents. During the latest wave of the virus, the country’s primary care service became so swamped that doctors and nurses in many parts of the country began using the much faster (and much cheaper) antigen tests to check patients for infection. The only problem is that to qualify for the EU’s health certificate on the grounds of natural infection, you need to have had a positive PCR test; the results of antigen tests are not recognised.
And that means there are now thousands of people in Spain who are in limbo. They have all had a recent Covid infection, which means they should have natural immunity. And that means they should qualify for the EU’s Green Pass. But because Spain’s health authorities used the wrong test on them (presumably by mistake), they don’t. According to the EU these people never had Covid. Unless Brussels makes an exception for them, which is looking pretty unlikely, they will now have more difficulty travelling to other parts of Europe.
It’s just one example of how arbitrary life can become in the “new normality” taking shape around us. As governments exert greater power and authority over our lives, all it takes is a simple administrative mistake for members of the public to suddenly find themselves unable to enter other European countries or even access public places and basic services in their home town. And as we’ve repeatedly seen since this pandemic began, governments and public authorities are prone to making mistakes pretty regularly.
It certainly looks like a domino that has been put in position poised to fall waiting for others to take their places in the line.
With America withdrawing from Afghanistan abruptly after some 20 years, one big question is being discussed throughout the strategic sphere by those both in big institutions and laying on their couches – is the American loss in Afghanistan the first domino to fall in the eventual collapse of the Global Hegemon? After all, Afghanistan is the “graveyard of empires” probably because it is an expression that sounds nice and because the Soviets fell apart a few years after losing to the locals. So this must be the “beginning of the end” right?
Well, we should never be so quick as to jump onto narrow narratives without looking at the big picture. Side-by-side images of the Americans and their allies fleeing Vietnam and Afghanistan by helicopter are flooding Facebook, posted by those in the Alternative Media who take great joy in any loss by the 21st century’s “Evil Empire” but they seem to forget that just a few decades after losing in Vietnam the United States won the Cold War and took dominance over the planet.
Image: Strategic meme-of-the-year material for 2021.
No single event no matter how photogenic it is, is not going to be a sign of the grand demise of the “Sole Hyperpower”. It really took from the beginning of WWI till the end of WWII for the British to truly fall apart as a geopolitical force. The Soviet Union fell much quicker, but it is very widely believed that Perestroika (or the The Reykjavik Summit) was the real first white flag that devolved into the breakup of the union years later. The Roman Empire was a vastly slower burn than either of these two modern behemoths.
This means we should not be debating if Afghanistan is the first “domino” to fall, but instead we should really take a look at what the rest of the dominos falling would look like. At this point we can surely put together a rough picture of what the next tiles to fall would look like, i.e. what other major failures/events would really be signs of the Monopolar World meeting its demise? The following are a few humble offerings as to what these dominos could be…
Abandoning the Maidan Regime in the Ukraine
The unexpected surrender and soon to be total fall of Kabul has certainly resonated in another city that starts with the letter K. If Washington is finding it necessary to abandon a twenty-year Nation-Building project that they have invested vast sums of money and manpower into, that means that back-burner Kiev could be cut loose in the near future, putting the fate of the region in the hands of the Russians.
Image: We all know who secures Ukrainian “independence”.
The Maidan has been a major roadblock for Russia. As Brzeziński wrote, “It cannot be stressed enough that without Ukraine, Russia ceases to be an empire, but with Ukraine suborned and then subordinated, Russia automatically becomes an empire” and Washington has done an absolutely fantastic job of turning the region into an “anti-Russia” as Putin recently called it.
If the Maidan project were to be abandoned, it would become another quite massive domino. Washington giving up on Kiev, resulting in that current political entity probably being divided up, mostly going to Moscow, would symbolize either the USA’s inability to stop the rise of the Russians or their begrudging acceptance of it.
Taiwan, Hong Kong and/or South Korea
The Trump-era State Department Democracy storm that was inflicted on Hong Kong has seemed to fade away, but a total abandonment of the thorns in the side of the Chinese Dragon would also result in another domino being placed into position.
Image: Not State Department = No Professional Protest Organizers in China.
Bailing on Hong Kong activists or failing to maintain Taiwan’s independence would certainly present a strong sign of weakness and inability from the standpoint of Washington. Furthermore, although China has never had a passionate love for the North Koreans, having South Korea as essentially an American beachhead right next door has been a cause of concern for decades for Beijing. The South Korean economy on paper looks amazing and their cities dazzle with progress but what would be the effects of America giving up on them? Is South Korea able to stand as a great nation, or is it really only successful thanks to the American umbrella? The answer to that would reveal itself within two weeks of an America-free Korean Peninsula.
Simply put, if Washington gives up on Hong Kong, Taiwan and/or South Korea it is another sign of the end for sure as China would be more or less rid of these weak points that have been exploited against it for decades.
A Loss of Control Over the “Bigs”
Big Tech, Big Pharma, Big Agro and so on, have dutifully served Washington’s interests despite their theoretically international nature. But we should never forget that large for-profit entities are quite “whoreish” and will serve whichever master they need to. If Washington cannot control the Bigs as it used to, this would be another domino.
To a small extent this is happening in Hollywood where the Chinese market’s (and its official and unofficial) demands are having a major impact. But if it comes to a point that Hollywood is only making a chunk of the world’s blockbusters rather than nearly all of them it would be the end of the total unobstructed Soft Power dominance of this American institution. Or even worse, if Hollywood can be bought out from under America then a new global narrative could be spun quite quickly.
If the Hegemon fades, the leadership of the Bigs will feel increasing pressure from the Russians, Chinese and Arabs to give up the whole “gay thing” and portray these societies in a positive light whether through bribery or threats of force. Apple may be “designed in California” but if need be they would surely bail for greener pastures rather than living a life of poverty loyal to a failed America.
Mexico, Lakotastan and African-America
The United States has done a fantastic job of fostering independence movements within its rivals while making diverse masses “American” at home. However, as with the Soviets and the British, waves of breakaway republics and successful secessionist movements would be a very big domino indeed.
The Soviets tried to create an African workers uprising in America in the 60’s and failed miserably, but BLM could get out of control, or in the case of a dying USA, could become used by foreign powers. An Afro-American Maidan would certainly be another sign of doom.
The rise of an independent Native-American state like the Lakota Indians’ lands would be yet another tile being stood into place, opening the door for further break-away attempts.
When the Mexicans lost the Mexican-American war they lost the chance to become the dominant power on the continent. Few remember, but the destiny of this New World was not just given to the Americans wrapped in a box. If the Mexicans had won the war they would be the ones with access to the Atlantic (via the Gulf of Mexico) and the Pacific simultaneously, not Washington. It would have been very possible for them to secure the entire West Coast. A Mexico that would begin to take action as an independent actor would certainly be another sign of serious trouble for Washington. Thus far, on the North American continent “there can be only one” but perhaps that isn’t necessarily going to always remain the same “one”.
The death of the Dollar or collapse of the Federal Reserve
If the dollar were to collapse, or there were serious problems at the Federal Reserve, as have been predicted for many years due to insane national debt, this would of course be the biggest domino of all. The West has been able to accumulate bafflingly massive debt with no consequences because of the dominance of Washington. It is very hard to call in a debt from the toughest kid in school surrounded by his henchmen. But when the big bully stops growing, and loses his buddies, all of a sudden getting your $5 back with a few whacks from a baseball bat becomes viable.
Image: If you are powerful enough no one can call in your debts.
No one can call in the debt of a Global Hegemon, but Regional Powers have to balance their checkbook. A decrease in power could lead to the national debt prophecy coming true in our lifetimes which would be probably the largest domino of all.
In conclusion
Is Afghanistan “the first domino to fall” in the death of the American Empire? This cannot be proven, but it certainly looks like a domino that has been put in position poised to fall waiting for others to take their places in the line. Other major defeats would be required to say for sure that this “New American Century” is over, not even making it to the one-fourth mark. It is really the other potential signs of the end that are of most concern not squabbling over Afghanistan’s domino status. So the big question is, if Washington is losing its Monopolar World Order, then where will be the next grand retreats?
China has put the latest wide-spread outbreak under control in 35 days as zero domestic confirmed COVID-19 cases were registered on Monday in the country despite that an asymptomatic case was reported late that day, a result that experts said proves the effectiveness of China’s anti-epidemic model.
Since the first cases in the latest outbreak that started in July 20 in an airport in Nanjing, capital of East China’s Jiangsu Province, the latest round of epidemic surge affected more than ten provinces and regions. It is regarded as the widest-spread one since the Wuhan outbreak in 2020 and the number of daily new cases at a time exceeded 100.
Wang Guangfa, a respiratory expert at Peking University First Hospital, told the Global Times on Monday that China’s precise zero-tolerance epidemic strategy has guarded the country against epidemic flare-ups one more time, despite the highly-transmissible Delta variant and larger areas affected, further proving the effectiveness of China’s epidemic coping model which stresses “Four-Early” measures – early detection, early reporting, early quarantine, and early treatment of COVID-19 cases.
A Beijing-based immunologist told the Global Times on condition of anonymity that with this zero tolerance model of fighting the virus, China was able to stamp out the epidemic surge in 35 days. In the future, China’s response could be faster and more precise as the country is ready to tweak it anytime in the face of more emerging mutations and the pandemic situation.
China’s zero tolerance method of the epidemic coping strategy will continue. At the same time, the immunologist suggested boosting efforts in prompting vaccinations to slow down transmissions and reduce severe illness as well as give booster shots for frontline workers.
After 35 days, the Global Times found that over the weekend, places such as Beijing, Jiangsu and Southwest China’s Sichuan announced they would gradually lift restrictions and restore normal life and production.
Since Monday, those who leave Nanjing will not need to present negative nucleic acid test results. Those who intend to enter Nanjing from low-risk regions will only need a green health QR code and normal temperature. Public transportation within the province has also normalized.
Nanjing has been reporting zero domestic confirmed cases for 10 days as of Monday, and the entire province reported zero confirmed cases for the first time on Monday.
From Sunday, Sichuan Province resumed cross-region travel and all main traffic routes in Hubei Province’s Wuhan also resumed. Beijing also cleared all epidemic controlled regions following the restrictions of two neighborhoods in Fangshan district being lifted on Sunday afternoon, and two communities in Wangjing, Chaoyang district, being lifted out of lockdown starting Tuesday.
Zhengzhou, capital city of Central China’s Henan Province which has registered zero domestic confirmed cases for 8 days, was cleared of all high-risk regions. Buses and taxis, and car-hailing platforms within the urban downtown resumed operations on Monday.
The country eliminates the virus in the latest flare-ups the same way China swiftly contained the outbreak in 2020. But this time, the country has been reacting more precisely in tracking down close contacts and enforcing lockdowns, ensuring the overall normal operations of people’s lives and production, despite the Delta sweeping dozens of regions, Wang said.
With the Delta variant spreading, for example, Beijing ran normally and only locked down several communities after confirming cases, and people in Wuhan lined up to take tests in an orderly and calm manner, and the city only had dozens of communities sealed off.
To detect potential cases, Yangzhou rolled out 12 rounds of massive nucleic acid tests, Nanjing had organized seven rounds and Zhengzhou is conducting the fifth round of testing. Once positive cases were found, they and their close contacts would be quarantined and treated.
Some problems were revealed as experts pointed that the poor management of cleaning workers in both Nanjing and Zhengzhou fueled the spread of the Delta variant from the Nanjing Lukou International Airport to other provinces and loose management was exposed in crowded public places such as mahjong parlors in Yangzhou, making these places the “eye of the storm” in this round of the epidemic.
In the early stage of the epidemic surge, Nanjing was also blamed by the public and some experts as it has been comparatively slow in taking action and conducting epidemiological investigations.
It is a big lesson to learn from this round of the epidemic related to Nanjing and Zhengzhou that staff members at airports and designated hospitals should be subject to regular testing and other strict epidemic control measures along with cargo and objects. Controlling the infection source and cutting off the infection channel are the two main ways to prevent and control any epidemic resurgence in China. If the people involved fail to do a good job in daily health monitoring and protection, they will ignite fresh flare-ups anytime, Wang said.
The Joint Prevention and Control Mechanism of the State Council on Monday released a notice requiring hospitals and local governments to give more efforts to optimize the arrangement of epidemic controlling personnel within hospitals, not reduce their salary to consolidate the hard-won achievements in the epidemic.
Some experts also said that in the latest outbreak, the timely punishment of officials who were slack in the fight against the epidemic is also part of the anti-epidemic Chinese model which proves effective. At least 70 officials were given penalties, some of whom were removed or dismissed from their posts, and others were warned for dereliction of duty in dealing with the local COVID-19 outbreak.
Holding derelict officials accountable at a moderate level helps enhance China’s prevention and control measures given the fact that maintaining a high-level guard in China is difficult in nature due to the huge population, large number of ports, vast territory and different levels of management in different regions across China, a senior official at the Chinese Center for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) told the Global Times on condition of anonymity.
Last year once I realized that the Covid campaign was a fear campaign and not a scientific or medical campaign, I understood that the operating agenda was not a public health agenda. It became clear that there was a profit agenda and also a control agenda in which civil liberties and their legal and constitutional protections were being cast aside.
Having studied at four top universities in days gone by when education, not propaganda, was education’s purpose, I am able to comprehend most scientific reports sufficiently to understand the gist of the reports, but in the case of Covid when in doubt I rely on virologists and medical school professors to vet or correct my conclusions. Having had famous professors including Nobel prize winners who were mocked in their earlier years by establishment opinion and having myself experienced resistance to my own innovative scholarship, I was aware that truth is often rejected until opponents are simply overwhelmed by the evidence. For my Oxford University professor, Michael Polanyi, a physical chemist, it took a half century for his theory of chemical absorption to win over Einstein’s disapproval. In the meantime a number of his students had won the Nobel prize in science. E.P. Wigner in physics. Melvin Calvin in chemistry. His son John Polanyi in chemistry. Michael Polanyi was the most intelligent and civilized person I have ever known. He would certainly be disheartened to see the disregard of evidence in universities and media today and by public authorities.
Experiencing the Covid Deception, I am alarmed that today evidence itself has lost its authority. Throughout the Western World, agendas take precedence over truth. This is most certainly the case with Covid-19.
We are living under a Covid policy that has no evidence whatsoever in its support. Lacking any evidence for the ruling policy, suppression of the actual facts is the operating principle. The utterly corrupt public health authorities, dumbshit ignorant politicians, and scum presstitutes repeat lies over and over, relying on constant repetition to turn the lie into truth. The vast bulk of the world’s population, lacking the education and energy to think for itself, is satisfied to have the media tell them what to think.
The public health authorities, dumbshit politicians, and scum presstitutes censor the scientists and doctors who actually understand the health challenge and know what to do to get it under control, thus preventing information other than the controlled narrative from reaching the public.
Here is the known information that is suppressed:
The Covid vaccine does not protect against acquiring Covid, nor does it prevent vaccinated people from spreading the virus.
The Covid Vaccine has massive adverse effects and is on course to cause more illnesses and deaths than Covid. Among the adverse effects are infertility and spontaneous abortion.
The vaccine trains the virus to evolve variants that escape the vaccine.
The lethality of the Covid virus has been massively overstated.
The number of Covid cases were massively overstated by a defective PCR test.
The outbreak of new cases ascribed to the Delta variant are worst in the countries with the most heavily vaccinated populations.
Known cures such as HCQ and Ivermectin are intentionally blocked from use by official protocol.
Large numbers of top level scientists and doctors are calling for a halt to Covid vaccination. These calls are suppressed by the scum presstitutes and ignored by official authorities.
Why? Is it just profit? Is it just control? Or is there a darker agenda?
Despite the known, clear, and incontestable failure of the vaccine to protect against infection and its known dangers, the authorities are pushing forward with more vaccination. This makes no sense whatsoever. Why have the authorities secured the cooperation of US employers, military, hospitals, and police forces to mandate Covid vaccination?
Why are public authorities using both government and the private sectors to coerce vaccination when the public authorities are fully aware that vaccination does not protect, but causes health injuries and deaths and spreads the virus?
Why is there no public debate about the serious threat that the Covid protocol presents to the world’s population?
How did scientific and medical truth become a “conspiracy theory”?
Today August 22 is a Sunday. Take an hour off the golf course, an hour off watching some sports event, an hour off whatever else you do to waste your time and remain ignorant and exploitable, and instead spend it watching the address by Dr. Simone Gold of Frontline Doctors to an educated audience.
Dr. Simone Gold is intelligent, compassionate, and overflowing with a sense of responsibility toward us. This most remarkable woman is what I remember once was the ideal American, the person we all wanted to be.
Dr. Gold’s presentation dates back to the beginning of this year. Everything that she suspected at the time but refused to assert as fact has been proven to be true.
Note that Dr. Gold stresses throughout her address the experimental status of the vaccine and the unprecedented use of an experimental, unapproved vaccine on the entire world population. Billions of people injected with we know not what. The immorality of such a mass inoculation of an untested and unapproved experimental vaccine is a charge that the corrupt public health authorities intend to escape by granting the still untested vaccines full approval not only before the required tests are conducted but in the face of the vaccine’s failure. The illegitimate corrupt President of the United States is serving as a hired voice both for pharmaceutical profits and a secret agenda.
Expect the ineffectual and extremely dangerous vaccine to be granted approval any day as an answer to Dr. Gold’s emphasis on its unapproved experimental status and as reassurance to the vaccine-hesitant that the extremely dangerous vaccine is safe.
Paul Craig Roberts, a former Assistant Secretary of the US Treasury and former associate editor of the Wall Street Journal, has been reporting shocking cases of prosecutorial abuse for two decades. A new edition of his book, The Tyranny of Good Intentions, co-authored with Lawrence Stratton, a documented account of how americans lost the protection of law, has been released by Random House. Visit his website.
President Biden has announced the forthcoming creation of an international organisation of democracies in the face of the rise of authoritarian Russian and Chinese regimes. Contrary to the official rhetoric, this is not about defending democracies, but about promoting US imperialism. This fight is futile because it has chosen the wrong opponent.
The President of the United States, Joe Biden, has announced that he is convening a virtual summit on December 9 and 10, 2021 to defend “Democracy”. Three main themes will be discussed: “defending against authoritarianism, fighting corruption and promoting respect for human rights”. During the meeting, the leaders present will commit themselves “to improving the lives of their own people and to addressing the greatest challenges facing the world”. This will be followed by a second summit in 2022, at which leaders will report on progress made relative to their commitments.
These meetings were announced by Joe Biden during his election campaign. At the time, he said that the aim was to defeat Russia and China. The real objective is therefore to define a criterion that distinguishes the two blocks in formation, as in the past a capitalist world was distinguished from a communist world.
DEMOCRACY AS A POLITICAL REGIME
If in the 19th century, the United States was perceived as a new democratic model – see in particular Alexis de Tocqueville’s work, De la démocratie en Amérique -, today it is nothing more than an oligarchy: effective power is held by a tiny group of hyper-billionnaires outside public institutions, while the political personnel is reduced to the role of extra.
In practice, the United States has never recognised popular sovereignty, and therefore democracy. Instead, its constitution is based on the sovereignty of governors, although an electoral system has gradually been put in place. In the 2000 presidential election, there was a dispute between two candidates, George W. Bush and Albert Gore, over the recount in Florida. The Federal Supreme Court concluded that constitutionally it did not need to know the election results in Florida, but only the opinion of the local governor, Jeb Bush (the candidate’s brother). As a result, George W. Bush was declared the winner, while the Florida recount gave Al Gore as President.
Today, democracy as a political system is challenged by the Woke ideology that President Biden claims. Equity between ethnic groups, which he has made his pet subject, is opposed to equality between all [1]. The democratic institutions of the United States are being challenged in practice by the secret counting of ballots, which has given rise to the legitimate assumption of massive electoral fraud. Finally, the mob assault on the Capitol attests to the fact that democratic institutions have lost their sanctity.
ALL POLITICAL REGIMES COME AND GO
In the eighteenth century, Western monarchies had run out of steam. They no longer had any recognised legitimacy. They still claimed to be of “divine right”, but their subjects no longer believed in them. Regimes based on “popular sovereignty”, democracies, emerged. The remaining monarchies adapted, not by renouncing their ’divine right’, but by combining it with ’popular sovereignty’.
In the 20th century, when the economic crisis of 1929 hit, the Western press claimed that capitalism was dead and that a new political system had to be invented. First it was communism, then fascism. It should be remembered that Benito Mussolini had been Lenin’s representative in Italy before he came up with fascism. Capitalism was thoroughly reformed by Franklin Roosevelt, fascism was militarily defeated, communism collapsed with the USSR, and democracy survived.
In the 21st century, and more particularly since the Covid epidemic, we have witnessed the sudden emergence of some fifteen very large IT groups, around the GAFAMs (Google, Apple, Facebook, Amazon and Microsoft). Their power is now greater than that of most states. They do not hesitate to censor the ideas they want and the people they want. This includes information from states about Covid’s medical treatments, and even messages from heads of state and government themselves, right up to the sitting US president. No political leader keeps Bill Gates (Microsoft) or Jeff Bezos (Amazon) waiting if one of them phones him, but he can delay or even refuse a communication from the US President. They are imposing their agenda, transhumanism, which should turn us into computerised animals and their leaders into superior beings who go out to conquer space.
Under these conditions, all democracy has become impossible. Western voters are going to the polls less and less because they have understood this. Only a third of those registered to vote in the last French elections did so. The institutions are still democratic, but democracy is a practice and the French have become detached from it.
This situation is absolutely new. It is true that the disappearance of the Western middle classes began with the dissolution of the Soviet Union, and the transformation of the European Common Market into a supra-national structure dates from the same period. But nothing, absolutely nothing, foretold what is happening to us.
Democracy is, in the words of Abraham Lincoln, “Government of the People, by the People and for the People”. Today, nowhere does the People govern themselves. Even if some states are resisting, such as Iceland or Switzerland, the fact is that the democratic ideal has become impossible to implement in the face of GAFAM. In the absence of democracy, i.e. the participation of the People in political life, the most important thing is to ensure that the decisions taken are in the general interest, which is what we call the Republic.
This situation is changing month by month. We have to fear terrible developments for our freedoms and for our means of living. In any case, the current facts are already unacceptable.
We cling to our formerly democratic regimes because we do not know what to replace them with. But we increase our problem by denying the obvious. So, just as we have kept monarchies alive beyond the end of “divine right”, we keep our democracies alive beyond the failure of “popular sovereignty”. However, the situations are not identical: no one believes in divine right power any more, but we have all experienced the validity of the principle of popular sovereignty. It is not a question of making a revolution against the GAFAMs, but of waging a war to make them give back the Power they have stolen from us. It is not a question of imagining a new type of political regime, but of defining rules that make democracy possible again.
Henry of Navarre intervened in the civil war in France. He managed to make Catholics and Protestants live together. He did not present himself as a monarch of divine right, but as a man who dedicated his actions to serving the general interest. On the advice of the jurist Jean Bodin, he was the first French sovereign to declare himself “republican”.
DEMOCRACY AS A POLITICAL WEAPON
Just after the dissolution of the USSR, US President Bill Clinton asked himself the same question as his successor Joe Biden: how to distinguish the Western bloc from the others? He devised a ’Global Democracy Strategy’ and set up a secret group in the White House to implement it.
We do not know who constituted this group, but we have identified its evolution during George W. Bush’s term. It was led by Liz Cheney (daughter of Vice President Dick Cheney) and Elliott Abrams (who organised the parliamentary overthrow of Hugo Chavez at the end of Bush Jr’s term [2] ). This group oversaw several overthrows at the National Security Council, such as that of the constitutional president of Honduras, Manuel Zelaya. It did not practice the military methods of the CIA, nor the pseudo-revolutionary methods of the NED, but invented a model for parliamentary coups. What followed was an epidemic of parliamentary overthrow of governments in Latin America.
Experience shows that democracy is now only a form, not a reality. One can trample on the Constitution and overthrow a government ’democratically’ as long as one puts a parliamentarian in charge.
We have no doubt that this office in charge of the Global Democracy Strategy still exists and will soon be in the news.
Already, this Strategy again rekindles the project of an “Alliance of Democracies” promoted by the essayist Francis Fukuyama, which the Bush Administration had imagined replacing the United Nations. The former Secretary General of NATO, Anders Fogh Rasmussen, created in 2017 a Foundation for the Alliance of Democracies.
OUR POLITICAL FUTURE
We need to admit that Russia and China are not worse than us, but rather face the same problem with a different culture. We need their help just as they need ours.
Together or separately, we will not find the solution immediately. We have to start fighting without knowing what form our victory will take, but we already know the basis. We must therefore specify the principle on which we want to build new democracies for ourselves or our children: the Republic.
Summary
States are being overtaken by new giant corporations, the GAFAMs. As a result, governments, whoever they may be, can no longer meet our expectations. It is wrong to speak of a “crisis of democracy” when it is a crisis of all political systems.
President Biden’s efforts to defend democracy are doomed to failure because they no longer correspond to the problems of the contemporary world. At most he can continue under this false banner to promote his country’s imperialism.
We can refuse the illegitimate power of GAFAM and defend ourselves by promoting not a political regime, but a decision-making criterion: the Republic.
You can’t have a civilization without civility. We may possess technology that is more advanced than any previous generation of Americans has had, but when it comes to how we treat one another and how we conduct ourselves, we are the worst generation in U.S. history by a very wide margin. We have truly become a “Hollywood culture”, and I don’t mean that in a good way. The average American spends 238 minutes a day watching television, and it is inevitable that putting so much garbage into our minds is going to result in garbage coming out. Most Americans learn how to express themselves by emulating what they see on their screens, and so now we have tens of millions of extremely crude people running around all over the place.
If you spend any time in public at all, you know exactly what I am talking about. Most Americans dress like slobs, act like pigs and endlessly spew profanity wherever they go.
While at the grocery store this week, a woman was ahead of me in the checkout line using the word, “Mother F&*#@%.” To the left of me, in another line, was a different woman on her cell phone. I could overhear her saying to someone, “F&$#” this, and “F*#@” that. I felt that I was drowning in a cesspool of profanity.
Recently, my wife said she was in the checkout line at Walmart, and a man was using such language without any inhibitions. Not being the kind of person to hold back, Kim said to him, “Sir, would you please not use that language? There are children present.” To which the man defiantly replied, “No!” His companion then backhanded him on the arm and said to, “Cut it out.” That was the end of it.
Sadly, it has gotten to a point where even our national leaders are not afraid to use profanity.
Earlier this week, it was being reported that Kamala Harris used profanity while engaged in a heated discussion about the crisis in Afghanistan…
Vice President Kamala Harris reportedly refused to stand alongside Joe Biden as he addressed the nation on the Afghanistan chaos, allegedly saying “you will not pin this shit on me” despite her massive role in Biden’s US troop withdrawal decision.
Before Biden gave an 18 minute speech to justify his decision to withdraw US troops from Afghanistan as the Taliban took over the country, Kamala Harris reportedly refused to stand alongside him as he spoke. “You will not pin this shit on me,” Harris reportedly said. However in April, Harris had bragged that she played a key role in Biden’s decision to withdraw, as was reported by Politico. She even confirmed that she was the last person in the room with the President during the major discussion regarding his decision to pull out US troops by September 11.
According to Holbrooke, when Biden was asked about America’s obligation to maintain their presence in Afghanistan to protect vulnerable civilians, he scornfully replied by referencing the US exit from southeast Asia in 1973.
‘**** that, we don’t have to worry about that. We did it in Vietnam, Nixon and Kissinger got away with it.’
Of course foul language is not just limited to one side of the aisle.
Our leaders like to consider themselves the pinnacle of civilization, and they have often criticized the Taliban for tearing down historical statues and forcing women to wear masks.
But over the past year, far more statues have been torn down inside the United States than the Taliban ever dreamed of tearing down, and at this point we are forcing everyone to wear masks.
Critics say that the Taliban does not allow freedom of speech, but when Taliban officials were asked about this they simply pointed out that Facebook is even worse when it comes to freedom of speech.
And they are right.
Critics say that the Taliban treats women horribly, and that is certainly true.
But women are treated shamefully in our nation too. Here is one example…
A creep groped a woman on a Brooklyn street this week — and then pummeled her when she tried to fight back, disturbing new video shows.
The 26-year-old woman was walking at the corner of South 4th Street and Havemeyer Street in Williamsburg around 2:15 a.m. Saturday when a stranger approached from behind and grabbed her buttocks, video released by cops early Tuesday shows.
When the woman attempted to slap the suspect, he socked her in the face multiple times, the clip shows.
The woman and her boyfriend were on their way to the Chicago Transit Authority Red Line subway at State Street and Jackson Boulevard Saturday night. They were waiting for the elevator at ground level to go down to the platform.
But they never made it. Instead, trouble found them, surrounded them, and attacked them.
They were viciously assaulted by a large gang of teens, and the woman was pummeled so badly that she actually needs plastic surgery…
“I need plastic surgery, because the bones are broke, and still bleeding inside,” the woman said.
The scars and bruising are concealed behind the shades the woman now wears over her eyes. But the pain is deeper.
Murder rates were way up all over the country last year, and they are way up again all over the country this year.
We have become a brutal, violent, blood-soaked country, and that is because we have a brutal, violent, blood-soaked culture.
At one time the U.S. could lecture the rest of the world about morality because we lived in a civilized society. But now we have lost whatever moral high ground we once possessed, and at this point we need the rest of the world to lecture us.
So what is going to happen as the thin veneer of civilization that we all take for granted on a daily basis continues to steadily disappear?
I am deeply, deeply concerned about our future, and this is a theme that I explored in my new book entitled “7 Year Apocalypse”.
We are in a highly advanced state of social decay, and it is getting worse with each passing year.
In recent days, I have heard so much criticism of the Taliban’s culture, and many of those criticisms are right on target.
But our culture is detestable too, and it has become that way because of the choices that we have made as a society.
Dr. Gold’s presentation dates back to the beginning of this year. Everything that she suspected at the time but refused to assert as fact has been proven to be true.
Henry of Navarre intervened in the civil war in France. He managed to make Catholics and Protestants live together. He did not present himself as a monarch of divine right, but as a man who dedicated his actions to serving the general interest. On the advice of the jurist Jean Bodin, he was the first French sovereign to declare himself “republican”.