Notice to my readers: My work is reader supported. Please consider becoming a paid subscriber, or a one-off financial contributor. Doesn’t have to be a lot. All donations gratefully accepted. See below for details of direct payments. Or subscribe via the Substack forum.
🗣️👉 ‘Thank you Greg Maybury for this profound and comprehensive narrative on the colonial-settler state of #Zionist terrorists in #Palestine.’
🗣️👉 ‘As a knowledgeable, anti-Zionist activist for the past 50 years, who once lived in Occupied Palestine for about 5 years, I salute you!’…
🗣️ ‘…Tribalism is the curse of Judaism, whether as practiced by my Orthodox tutor in Brooklyn, the aunts who trampled on Betty’s memory, or, in imperial form, by the State of Israel and the Zionist movement that nourishes it. It is an endless return, bound to the wheel of revenge...’ — Jewish-American author Joel Kovel, 2007.
🗣️ ‘The bond of Judaism and the sustaining cause of Jewish isolation has been the Talmud, a vast collection of legalism, ceremonialism, and casuistry destined by its minute observances to preserve the purity of the Jew and keep him apart from the impure Gentile.’ — Jewish historian and writer Goldwin Smith.
🗣️ ‘A little loyal Jewish Ulster in a sea of potentially hostile Arabism’.— Ronald Storrs, First British governor of Jerusalem, on the creation of Israel. 1943.
‘Be careful...watch out for the yeast of the Pharisees...’ — Jesus Christ, King of the Jews, giving his disciples a ‘heads up’ of sorts. Mark 8:15
Introduction: As is often the case, there’s a sense of déjà vu attending debate about any and all things Israel. Such discourse is unavoidable without reflecting on its kinship with its chief patron the United States. The events in Palestine and Syria this past year alone and more broadly across the Middle East bring this into sharp relief where, no matter what happens, America’s political classes and its establishment media avoid—in bi-partisan lock-step—any censure of the Tel Aviv regime for its crimes and flagrant violations of International law.
Though especially evident since 9/11—an event from which Israel seems to have been the only state that has benefitted—this unholy, unequal geopolitical alliance is the decades-in-the-making basis for everything we’ve recently witnessed, with links to pretty much all we’re experiencing in the here and now.Whilst such links remain, so do the existential dangers for America and the rest of the world.
In this second instalment in a series of stand-alone articles, Greg Mayburydraws upon the work of both Jewishand non-Jewish authors, writers, researchers, activists and historians to present a critical, wide-ranging analysis of various facets of the mythos and the reality of Israel, its history, and its origins. Along with that, by alternately illuminating the past with an ever watchful eye to the here and now, he attempts an in-depth probe into Zionism and its origins, and especially the inordinate power its various supporters, lobby groups, and defenders wield across time and space.
Zionism is the reigning political ideology which inspired the establishment of the Jewish State in 1948 and which still dictates its national interests. It is an ideology that has usurped the “national interests” of the nations in which so many of “God’s chosen” reside. Moreover, it is one whose tenets are arguably the most enduring, portentous, globally consequential, yet least understood—by Jews and non-Jews alike—of any of the major political currents in the ‘river of our history’. Time then for another visit to the Wailing Wall, albeit one of a different kind!
ADedication: To all the crew members of the USS Liberty, living and dead. This ship was subjected to an unprovoked attack by the Israeli Defence Forces on June 8, 1967, at the height of the Six Day War in the Middle East. Dozens were killed, and many more badly injured. The USG with the complicity of the establishment media covered up the real story of what happened that day. It remains to this day a skeleton dangling in the closet of US-Israeli relations. For a detailed insight into the Liberty story, please see here and here.
All the Accumulated Evil (In a ‘Family of Bad Ideas’)
One of many recurring themes in the work of Edward Said, the late Palestinian-American intellectual, and author of the seminal 1978 book Orientalism, was the synchronicity between Imperialism and Zionism: ‘When we talk about Zionism and Imperialism’ Said noted, ‘we are talking about a family of ideas, belonging to the same dynasty, springing out of the same seed’.
Though the following is a topic for more in-depth consideration another time, suffice to say here that with Said’s above summation front of mind, a supreme irony might be found in that of the verdict of Robert Jackson, chief American prosecutor at the Nuremberg war crimes trial.
Edward Said — Not a Fan of the Zionists
Said Jackson: ‘imperialism contains within itself all the accumulated evil of all empires’…Thus we might readily surmise that Zionism itself is the direct descendant of Imperialism and the inheritor of its legacy. Put another way, from the seed comes the weed! That we are talking about such matters by directly referencing the Nuremberg trials renders that irony into even sharper relief, for what should be obvious reasons.
In the context then of a) the invasion and concomitant occupation of Palestineand the 1948 establishment of the Israeli regime; b) the wholesale massacre by Zionist zealots of the country’s indigenous inhabitants and untrammelled terrorism on their part that both preceded and followed it; c) the subsequent razing of their houses, and wanton destruction a la the Old Testament playbook of their villages and communities (its memoricide); andd) the subjugation of its remaining inhabitants—to say little of the ‘work-in-progress’ dispossession, ethnic cleansing and slow-motion genocide of them and their descendants—it’s not difficult to see where Said was coming from.
And with the benefit of hindsight which the 45 intervening years affords us since he penned those words, who but the most partisan of ideologues would argue with his assessment? The Zionist-Imperialist construct was he averred,
‘…a whole system of confinement, dispossession, exploitation and oppression that still holds us down and denies us our inalienable rights as human beings’.
We’re witnessing as we speak this very phenomenon—its brutality as profoundly amoral and audacious as its criminality is unconscionable—play out in front of our eyes. Israel’s recent cold-blooded murder of Al Jazeera journalist Shireen Abu Akleh is just one example which underscores this premise. And Israeli settler violence—the ethnic cleansing—against Palestinians continues unabated, with the Israeli authorities and the IDF not simply turning a blind eye to it all. They are in fact directly and indirectly encouraging and facilitating it.
What we are seeing then is the ‘accumulation of evil’ that has arisen from the Pandora’s Box opened by Israel’s creation and its relentless, ruthless pursuit of dominion over the Palestinians and hegemony over its immediate neighbours and beyond. The portents, indeed the existential dangers, expressed presciently by modern day ‘prophets of doom’ both Jews and Gentiles alike then and now—perhaps the very spiritual descendants of Jeremiah himself—are coming to pass.
As recent events show, hardly a day goes by where there isn’t at least one story that gives clear evidence of Israel’s serial contempt for human rights, utter disregard for international law, and/or its disdain for sovereign identity of other nations and independence of other peoples. The Tweet below is but one more of countless examples.
Moreover, Israel’s Teflon coated capacity for withstanding the disfavour of those individuals, groups, organisations, institutions, and nations with the temerity to hold it accountable for any number of crimes against humanity and war crimes, is another remarkable testament to their unique place within the dubiously proscribed ‘international rules-based order’. It is further evidence of their stifling hold on the imagination of otherwise right-thinking, morally righteous individuals regardless of nationality, race, creed, religion, ethnicity, or rational political leanings.
To underscore the above, in 2020 alone, Israel—principally for its actions in the Occupied Territories—was the subject of three times more UN General Assembly (GA) resolutions condemning it than all other countries put together. Yet nothing comes of these resolutions. Indeed, the recent appointment of UN Israeli Ambassador Gilad Erdanas vice-president of the UNGA exemplifies just how farcical the whole UN charade is. (See here for a more complete history of Israel’s serial contempt for the authority UN.)
In fact the more that individuals, groups, and nations stand up to Israel and attempt to hold it accountable, the more it seems to double down in its all out effort to portray, then audaciously elevate, itself as a virtuous, moral, democratic, peaceful nation, one that cannot and does not do any wrong. The “rules” were written for The Others, and do not apply to them. The one-size-fits-all, shopworn platitudes offered in their defence by its leaders and apologists are predictable iterations of those that have gone before. ‘When you’re on a good thing, stick to the talking points’, as it were.
Israel composes, then imposes its own bespoke rules paradigm, ever malleable according to its own expedient, self-serving needs and circumstances. “The Others” are expected to walk in lockstep. And in doing so, Israel reflects the aphorism—attributed to French thinker Voltaire—that ‘to know who rules over you, look to whom you cannot criticise’.
With expressed disapproval of Israel, and its policies, actions, and conduct—no matter how constructive, justified or considered—becoming an exercise fraught with peril as shown by the draconian restrictions coming to the fore both on social media and in the legacy media, the portents for us all are ominous. The outcome is easily foreseeable, and one which does not inspire hope or optimism for our freedom to express uncomfortable truths.
Moreover, with criminal legislation constantly being proposed, drafted, and in some cases enshrined in law (often under the radar or using specious pretexts), the manoeuvrings of which seek to termite free speech, we are all now sitting on the thin edge of the wedge, one located on a very slippery slope. Such developments have sizeable implications beyond the US, with real ramifications for all countries who for better or worse, have always looked to it for guidance and example in such matters. (Even here in Australia, we’re far from immune to the influence of the Zionist ‘agenda benders’, a matter to be explored in future articles.)
And the more this becomes a reality, the more it seems paradoxically that people are less able or willing to grasp the consequences of our complacency or tacit compliance. As if paralysed and hypnotised in one, we remain inert, unable to muster the will nor the energy to protect our treasured, hard won freedoms and independence of thought, speech and action!
As noted this is not just in America, that fabled ‘City on a Hill’, whose bright lights of freedom, justice, democracy, fairness and liberty, purportedly attended by the high prospect of pursuing a life well-lived full of authentic happiness as the realistic and optimistic end-game for its citizens, are becoming dimmer by the day. Whether on its own turf or internationally, that America itself has not always lived up to its own mirror (self) image is not helping, might be viewed by some as a statement of the bleeding obvious.
Yet such clarity—to say little of the political pushback such realisations might hopefully engender—remains removed from the line of sight amongst the ‘critical masses’. With America’s political classes across the spectrum increasingly failing to respond with appropriate leadership to the dying of the light, must leave one and all in a state of frustration, disillusion, and foreboding for the future.
When viewed via such a prism, it is not a stretch to suggest that Israel sees its chief benefactor as its role model; that from such a perspective it feels ‘morally’ justified in acting the way it does, and can therefore rightfully feel impervious to, and morally detached from, the dissent and disaffection rightly directed at it by others. In this some may perceive a measure of legitimacy, however skewed; some vindication as it were, however distorted. But nonetheless understandable, though far from excusable.
To wit: There can be few informed ‘students of history’ and the more considered of ‘political explorers’ amongst us who’d argue that America has not wantonly squandered the moral capital (whether perceived or real; justified or not) it was widely seen to have accrued in the aftermath of Second World War.
To the extent that they might recognise it and be inclined to ponder why, I’m sometimes asked by friends and acquaintances (who in varying degrees might qualify as “informed” and “considered” but who nonetheless have demonstrated genuine concern about such matters), why this might be the case? ‘What is the fundamental reason for this?’ they ruefully ask. I point to Israel as the short answer to this profoundly important question. Yet few find it easy to get their heads around such a response, even one carefully articulated.
Dispatches from the No Fly Zone is reader-supported effort. To receive new posts & support my work, consider becoming a paid subscriber. Or make a One-off donation with Patreon or PayPal. See links below & above.
— The ‘Bad Conscience’ of Zionism
For its part, Israel has blithely and recklessly squandered its own “moral capital” since its inception. That it continues down this path to this day is evident for all to see and contemplate. There are many though who, having explored then contemplated the well documented, less mythical yet little known circumstances and events of Israel’s creation and the lead up to it, would argue that much of said “capital” was fraudulently acquired to begin with.
In this, we might invoke the estimable Voltaire. For the French thinker, appreciation was a 'wonderful thing' he mused; what we see as excellent in others, ‘belongs to us as well’. If we might identify just one key characteristic conspicuous by its absence from the collective mindset our rather imperious, insular ‘Hebrew’ brethren, it would be an “appreciation” of "The Others". That's putting it mildly!
For his part Voltaire held few illusions about the 'Tribe', notwithstanding their “Chosen People” status, self-proclaimed as it is. And therein might lay a fundamental problem, of this or any previous age, going far back into antiquity. A “problem” which is unambiguously laid bare in the Jewish Talmud and various other sources. At the same time, if we allow ourselves the space and time to contemplate it accordingly, it provides us all many insightful answers to the age-old “Jewish Question”. (Perhaps one of the best Jewish questions we might ask is this: Why do we as Gentiles tolerate their racist, ethnocentric, supremacist, holier-than-thou ways?)
That Israel continues further to accumulate then flaunt its influence and flex its power and privileged position—albeit one self-ascribed and based far more on Biblical mythology and fable with large measures of self-serving self-delusion than on historical reality—within and across the geopolitical firmament, and to do so with unbridled hubris and impunity, because its chief benefactor and enabler refuses to insist upon better behaviour or because America itself has relinquished, nay forfeited, its own global 'role model' status, is difficult to say.
I’d aver though it’s probably a combination of the two. Both nations are seemingly caught in a symbiotic, counterproductive feedback loop of existentially dangerous dimensions. For them and the rest of us. Both nations—at least their leaders and policy makers—have an inflated view of their exceptional status within the geopolitical firmament...To say that's "dangerous" hardly does it justice.
US SoS Anthony Blinken & Israeli PM Naftali Bennet Pressing the Flesh
In Overcoming Zionism: Creating a Single Democratic State in Israel/Palestine, his unflinching critique of Israel and its founding ideology Zionism, Jewish writer and scholar Joel Kovelspoke about the “bad conscience” of Jews who adhere to this unholy creed. It was indeed the “twinned demons” of a “bad conscience” and state racism (a theme touched on in the first instalment) which interact with its geo-strategic position and political economy to produce a breakdown of the moral fabric of the nation.
‘It is an essential feature of the bad conscience’’ heopined, ‘…to drive toward greater transgression.’ Said Kovel:
‘[We know] that recognition of common humanity and acceptance of moral responsibility leads to reconciliation and forgiveness. However, the bad conscience of Zionism moves in the opposite direction,to join the cycle of vengeance that stains human history. It is possible to see this emerging in the early period of the state, when Israel was, despite the terror campaign of 1948, still able to command a healthy dose of world approval. But who could have foretold back then just how cruel and coldly malevolent would be the direction given to Israeli state aggression by the bad conscience?’ [My emphasis].
“Who could have foretold?” indeed? Well, quite a few as it turns out! Nonetheless, Kovel’s rhetorical musing is still justifiably tendered.
We shall return to these and similar themes in later instalments. But for now we revisit the history of that “early period” of Israel that Kovel mentioned and the “world approval” the Zionists—in the dogged pursuit of their “Unholy Grail”—were able to command firstly in the establishment of Israel, its subsequent recognition, and thereafter its ongoing support to this day.
In his foreword to Israel Shahak’s 1994 Jewish History, Jewish Religion: The Weight of a Thousand Years (of whom more in a later instalment), the thinking person’s political gossip Gore Vidal recalled an anecdote from a private tête-à-tête he had in 1958 with then aspiring POTUS John F. Kennedy (JFK).
According to Vidal, JFK (by some accounts no slouch himself as an enthusiast of Beltway scuttlebutt) confided to him that early in 1948, before the presidential election of that year, then sitting Democratic president Harry S Truman (HST) “accepted a bribe” from Zionists for $2m (roughly $25m in today’s ‘shekel’) to support the establishment of a Jewish state in Palestine.
Now it’s safe to assume that HST would’ve found any such ‘campaign donation’ irresistible, if only because he was facing an uphill battle to win a second term. As it turned out, Truman famously went on to clinch the election, confounding the predictions of assorted pundits at the time. Whilst we may never know if the “donation” did help get him over the line (given the Zionists’s well established playbook it’s safe to assume they would’ve had an each way bet on the result), the former failed Missouri haberdasher and ‘accidental’ president’s place in history was once again assured, if at all it was needed by that time. Though it was hardly the first exemplar of the “bad conscience” to which Kovel alluded, it was by any measure one of the most pivotal and most portentous for both Israel and America.
Of course, such a disclosure gives us a whole new spin on Truman’s oft-cited positioning statement, “The shekel stops here!”, albeit here delivered with an apt tweak. And given what we know now about Israel’s history and the inherent venality of US leaders, such a revelation is perhaps unsurprising. As soon as the United Nations (UN) voted for the partition of Palestine on May 15 of that year—the necessary first goal of the Zionists before they could claim bragging rights to a sovereign state of their own—uber Zionists David Ben-Gurion and Chaim Weizmann, the principal torch-bearers for the establishment of the new nation, wasted little time in declaring it a done deal.
Whilst some might view the rest as history, it wasn’t in the way many might have expected. This represents what the so-named ‘father’ of the Zionist movement Theodore Herzl identified as ‘the terrible power of the purse’, one of several means—others being espionage, propaganda, military aggression, treason, censorship, blackmail, terrorism, bribery, assassination, warmongering, and Machiavellian-inspired great power plays to name a few—whereby the movement would achieve its ultimate objectives.
Insofar as a different outcome then might’ve been had Truman lost the election, there’s little point positing counterfactuals here, given the fierce, relentless lobbying by the Zionists of both parties’ power brokers and their respective candidates. Even if Truman had resisted the filthy lucre on offer by the Zionists and the unholy siren call of their Stateside cheerleaders, it’s difficult to imagine Number 33’s Republican opponent Thomas Dewey acting differently had he won.
At all events, for his part the former Kansas City ‘shopkeep’ wasn’t prepared to wait and find out. For most everyone at the time considered the “Jewish vote” essential to a win with even more certainty it seemed as most everyone expected Truman to lose. Whether this was true or not is again something of a moot point: the Zionist machine—now very much in perpetual motion—had convinced them it was a dead cert, and that was all that counted for the party mandarins and their apparatchiks. “It’s the Jews, stupid!” might well have been the campaign mantra of the time.
FDR’s successor then accorded Israel full, official recognition within a few hours of the partition proclamation, becoming the first world leader to do so. A more potent (and fateful) demonstration of Herzl’s “power” at least up until that point would be difficult to discern.
It’s worth noting that, perhaps like the nuclear bombing of Japan, and the establishment of what would morph into the National Security State, such consequential decisions were not entirely those of the president’s. Which is to say that history may have baptised him the “accidental president”, but Truman’s tenure and legacy was hallmarked more by design if not indeed predestination, even if they were the designs and predestinations of others whose ambitions and agendas, political clout and decision-making power long preceded his, and by a wide margin, certainly eclipsed it. Nowhere was this clout and power more in evidence that with the Zionist agenda.
And so it was for the creation and recognition of Israel, the decision a fait accompli; in short, ‘the fix was in’.The Zionists were as they say, “In like Flynn!”. With perhaps some relatively minor or temporary setbacks, from this point onwards they were unstoppable. The proof is in the kugel!
— The Zionist Power Configuration (ZPC)
Such then has been the extraordinary evolution of what author and fierce critic of Israel James Petras calls the Zionist Power Configuration (ZPC) in the US, one is left to wonder how things might have shaped up if there had been little or no resistance throughout this time. At this point it is worth noting that some have predicted Israel’s waning influence in Washington. Others have suggested it will necessarily be curtailed by the demands of the American people once they realise the degree they are being ‘had’ by Israel and its Stateside Jewish ‘houseguests’.
To be sure many have courageously challenged the chokehold this small nation wields over the US policy agenda, and pushed back against the influence it constantly seeks to assert in every nook and cranny of the body politic at the expense of their own national interest. Quite a few of these folks have fallen foul in various ways of the ruthless and relentless machinations of the ZPC (oka the Israel Lobby), which doubtless leaves countless others similarly inclined, wary of doing same.
In his 2008 book,Zionism, Militarism, and the Decline of US Power, Petras cites many examples of organisations and people who dared to challenge or resist in some way, shape or form the might of the “Lobby”, and who came off second best! And it’s not just the influence it has over policy that is of concern to numerous Americans. It is the ability of Israel and its stateside cadre to extract (read: extort or ‘bilk’) billions of dollars from Uncle Sam’s coffers, without which Israel would likely have to shut up shop long ago as a modern state.
For Petras, the principal basis for long-term, large-scale support, financial or otherwise, is found among public and private institutions in the US, of which he says, there are essentially four basic sources of financial, ideological and political support for the Israeli rentier economy. These include in the main:
2. the establishment media, particularly the New York Times, Washington Post, Hollywood, CNN, NBC, and the major television networks and periodicals;
3. the US government—Congress (legislature) and the Presidency (executive); and
4. the trade union bosses and the heads of pension, hedge and investment funds.
When we factor in the BigTech conglomerate, the judiciary and academia, along with the medical, scientific, healthcare, and educational (school) establishments, we’re talking then a formidable force for power, influence and control over the body politic. Together they comprise the two most important commodities—information and money—themselves the central levers in the exercise of that control and influence.
What is notable though is that in the same book, whilst Petras voiced the opinion that ‘the rise of Judeo-fascism represents a clear and present danger to democratic freedoms in the United States’, he pointed to a rising anger and hostility in America against the ZPC, against its ‘authoritarian communal attacks’ on our democratic values, to say nothing of US national interests. ‘Sooner or later’ the author said,
‘…there will be a major backlash—and it will reflect badly on those who, through vocation or conviction, engage in the firings, censoring and intimidation campaigns against the American majority. The American people will not remember their cries of ‘anti-Semitism’; they will recall their role in sending thousands of American soldiers to their death in the Middle East in the interests of Israel, and how [these wars] have diminished the United States’ image in the world, to say nothing of its economic well-being and democratic freedoms at home.’ [Emphasis added.]
Around 15 years after Petras posed this prospect, we might suggest—with due respect to the author—it was wishful thinking on his part. Which is to say, there’s little sign of any such awakening. This is a reality one suspects even he’d have little difficulty in now accepting. In that interim, the ZPC it could well be argued, has only tightened its grip on the body politic. And this it needs be noted is three presidents later. Not even Donald Trump when he was in office—the man still (inexplicably) seen by so many to be the redeemer in waiting who’d arrest America’s downward spiral—showed any sign he was willing to curtail the Zionist clout in Washington. Indeed, Trump toadied up to Israel with the best (or worst, depending on one’s perspective), of them. His appointment of people with unflinching commitment to the Jewish state in his administration is ample evidence of this: These included John Bolton, Mike Pompeo,Nikki Haley, and his own son-in-law Jared Kushner, and others.
There are plenty of other examples where MAGA-MAN™️ demonstrated he knew all too well upon which side his bagel was buttered best. Or really knew little or nothing at all about Israel and its history of subverting the national interests of the very state upon which its survival had always depended, and the implications this might’ve held for any authentic attempts on his part to “make America great again”.
Put another way, if Donald Trump genuinely desired to “make America great again”, some of the very first ports of call (to cite just a few examples),would’ve been for him to
a) take back control of US foreign policy from Israel’s fifth columnists that comprise the all powerful neo-conservative cabal in the US;
b) require all Israeli-centred lobby and Zionist pressure groups and organisations to register as foreign agents;
c) undertake wholesale campaign finance reform to reduce undue Zionist/Israeli political influence and corruption; and
d) drasticallyreducethe amount of funding the US commits to Israel and stop vetoing UN sanctions against Israel for its violations of international law.
Indeed, in order “make America great again”, or at least begin the process to that end, Trump needed to make a clean break from Israel, a viewpoint this writer expressed back in 2016 in an article unambiguously titled “A Clean Break from Israel (What America Needs Most)”. None of this was ever going to happen of course. And as we now know—further underscored as it is by the benefit that rear view mirror gazing inevitably confers—Trump showed no sign he understood any of these political imperatives before or during his tenure.
Moreover, though this is something we might explore deeper in a later instalment, it’s perhaps instructive for us to consider that a goodly portion of the tens of billions of dollars of ordinary Americans’ hard earned that Israel bilks from its chief benefactor goes toward corrupting the very same politicians who slavishly support Israel by bowing to its every whim and fancy, and whom the good folk of America elect in good faith (albeit decreasingly so one imagines), to represent them in their best interests. Given the parlous condition of the US economy as we speak—and the rapidly deteriorating, perhaps irreversible, state of basic infrastructure in communities, neighbourhoods, towns and cities across the nation—many might be forgiven for questioning such largesse.
In an article from December 2021, serial Israel remonstrant Philip Giraldi—executive director of theCouncil for the National Interest, an organisation whose essential remitis to pushback against the Zionist “Grand Design” insofar as it plays out in the U.S.—voiced concerns about that country’s ever-evolving and ever inventive modus operandi in maintaining its pole position in the hearts and minds of Washington’s political classes and establishment media. This is a necessary precondition for being able to continue ‘squeezing America dry’, to paraphrase one former Israeli PM.
Philip Giraldi, Serial Israeli Remonstrant, Fly in the Zionist Ointment, Patriot.
Quite apart from simply throwing its weight around, Israel and its Stateside fifth columnists, principally via AIPAC and the ADL and the broader, formidable Israel/Jewish/Zionist Lobby (the ZPC), throw a lot of money around. It is a given that there is nothing like the smell of freshly minted shekels either side of the election cycle to attract the ‘complete and undivided’ of this craven, venal crowd.
Giraldi cites for example a more recent push by AIPAC which seeks to further leverage the formidable power of PACs and super PACs (political action committees; themselves practically a Zionist contrivance) to firstly forestall rising resistance to Israel and the Zionist agenda, its policies and its influence in US politics, and secondly, to then consolidate and tighten the stranglehold it already enjoys over the political and policy-making process.
Herein the Zionist mindset seeks to leverage the PACs as a means to exercise further clout and influence. Again we’re talking about the “terrible power of the purse”, and in this both Kovel’s and Petras’s views are instructive. After noting those who accumulate a significant stock of funds, they then have at their disposal ‘the collective power of past labor and the power to control future labor’, the latter said.
‘The more money, the more does the self become aggrandized, and the ‘others’ whose labor has been exploited become reduced, their humanity dissolving into a thing-like Otherness. And the more that money is used for the particular gain of one faction while others are seen as being merely in the way, the more malevolent becomes the will whose power money expands.’ [Emphasis added.]
With Congress and its denizens already a majority-owned subsidiary of Israel Inc., a complete takeover may not be that far off. And this is just in the Federal sphere. The state and municipal realms are a whole other playground in which the ‘Jewish bully’ as represented by the omnipresent, all seeing, all-knowing Lobby can further let the rest of the ‘kids in the playground’ know who owns them and their lunchboxes. This they do, with relentless energy and remorseless zeal.
Once again, James Petras captures the zeitgeist with the following:
‘When a country, like the United States, is in decline, it is not because of external competition: declining competitiveness is only a symptom’ he says. ‘It is because of internal rot. Decline results when a nation is betrayed by craven leaders, who crawl and humiliate themselves before a minority of thuggish mediocrities pledged to a foreign state without scruples or moral integrity.’ [Emphasis added.]
— The Terrible Power of the Purse (Shekels Never Sleep)
We’re not just talking then about ‘campaign donations’ here of course. Though they’ve always been, and remain, a critical part of the strategy, by whatever sleight-of-hand, under-the-table, back-door means they come in. The broad gist of Giraldi’s piece was that of a warning: Israel's assertiveness, its legendary preparedness to throw that weight in and around the Beltway environs and far beyond into the foreseeable future will become even more aggressive.
In the Zionist pursuit of the Unholy Grail of Israel then, as significant as it was, the infamous Truman bribe earlier mentioned is but one of countless historical demonstrations that no expense was to be spared, no arm left untwisted, no quarter brooked, no ego left un-stroked nor hip pocket unstuffed, no compromise contemplated.
Indeed, when we speak of the “Jewish vote”, we’re talking about the power of the blood-shekel-stuffed purse! As noted, it didn’t stop with Truman, extending well beyond his time in office to the present day, and eventually penetrating every nook and cranny of the body politic of the Republic. Giraldi’s report as cited serves to underscore that the Zionist modus operandi remains intact, the machine still operating in perpetual motion.
Moreover, given Israel’s current place in the geopolitical firmament, and in the collective historical imagination of Jews and non-Jews alike, more than a few might be surprised that there was at the time considerable resistance to the establishment of Israel. Was this because these folks didn’t like Jews? Or did they know something of which the final decision makers were unaware, or if they were aware had discounted as not being important considerations?
Or was it because they felt this perennially diasporic—and by many accounts (chiefly their own of course just to be clear) perpetually persecuted and victimised—peoples didn’t ‘deserve’ to have a land and a nation of their own, complete with all the trappings of having their own sovereign identity and self-determination?
Or that in supporting and facilitating a Jewish state in the heart of arguably the world’s most pivotal piece of real estate on the geopolitical landscape and which comprised mostly Arab/Muslim nations with whom America was seeking to develop its respective and collective strategic relationships in the post-War era was simply not considered a good idea?
And for that matter, did the opposition to the creation of Israel derive wholly from Gentiles begrudging the Jewish people their alleged destiny as purportedly foretold, indeed preordained, in the Bible? Were indeed all Jews in favour of the creation of Israel or supportive of Zionism?
SIDEBAR: On the gentile side of the ledger, it’s worth noting here one of the most high profile and influential amongst those in U.S. political, diplomatic, policy-making and national security circles at the time who did pushback against the prevailing mood was America’s first Secretary of Defence James Forrestal. “Influential” he may have been, but it was not enough to carry the day. We’ll explore more deeply the compelling Forrestal story in a future instalment; suffice to say that his courageous efforts to resist the Zionist juggernaut proved both ill-fated and fatal. The only question remaining is this: as a consequence of his trenchant opposition to the establishment of the Jewish state and the ZPC, did he jump, fall or was he actually—as is sometimes said—defenestrated? And Forrestal was by no means a ‘one-man-band’ in his opposition.
US Secretary of State James Forrestal: He opposed the Zionists — Did he jump, or was he pushed?
A little more background is useful in order to address these questions (and many others), along with appreciating why, despite such opposition, Israel’s creation assumed an air of inevitability amongst America’s political classes and power elites after the end of the War. As noted, Truman was on the political ropes, with most expecting Dewey to win handsomely.
Though there had been much talk about the Jews from war-torn Europe finally getting their own country—several propositions having been put forward, e.g. Uganda, Madagascar—there were many highly influential people amongst the US political, foreign policy, security, intelligence, and diplomatic power elites who were adamantly opposed to the creation of a nation of Jews in Palestine, as noted the epicentre of the Islamic-Arabic world (ie. the Greater Middle East).
Both candidates however were acutely aware of this concern and its geopolitical implications, and the not insubstantial reality that there were well over a million Arabs (mostly Muslim but also many Christian Arabs) already living in Palestine, and had been for several centuries. But as noted both candidates were subject to relentless pressure from the various Zionist forces and their disparate American allies and supporters to commit themselves to the establishment of the much vaunted Jewish state, and its official recognition immediately after the election.
It’s enough to say that this was another significant, albeit below the radar election issue, one with which if Americans were even aware of, were probably least concerned about. But as we’ve seen in part, it was for certain of sizeable interest to all the key players—whether for or against Israel’s establishment—at the highest levels of the USG and spanning the whole political spectrum.
And for good reason. This “interest” was far from organic, or for that matter of an entirely patriotic, nor altruistic hue. From 1895 onwards, the Zionists had exerted decades of political influence, ‘moral’ leverage, and unbridled coercion firstly in Britain’s corridors of power in the pre-war period, and from the early 40s and immediately after the war in America, consolidating and further tightening their grip on the political psyche of those in power in both countries.
To the best of this writer’s knowledge, no other single group in history had managed to so completely capture the hearts, minds and imaginations (to say little of their customary sense of self-interest and predisposition toward political expediency) of the ruling power clique in its many and varied configurations—elected and unelected, known and unknown, left and right—and enlist them with such relative ease to their cause. The content of the Giraldi article cited earlier reflected a long tradition of these folks being nothing if not determined to get their way. The Truman bribe—one of modern history’s most consequential quid pro quos—is as noted, testament to that!
But as also noted, not all of the tribe subscribed to the Zionist agenda, not by a long shot from the Wailing Wall. By committing themselves to the “cause” of Zionism then, ‘[That] group of Jews’, as the renegade Rabbi Elmer Berger and anti-Zionist of yore once depicted them,
‘…entered a peripatetic kind of diplomacy which took it into many chancelleries and parliaments, exploring the labyrinthine and devious ways of international politics in a part of the world where political intrigue and secret deals were a byword.’
In embracing Zionism, Berger averred, ‘Jews began to play the game of practical politics.’ Though he was referring to the more recent iteration of the Jewish power castes, a deeper look back into history reveals that they were hardly ingenues in playing said “game”. They were well practiced in the dark, Machiavellian arts of political manipulation and palace intrigues, and in effect, ‘circling the wagons’ if and when there was any sign of resistance to their agenda. (Douglas Read’s book Controversy of Zion—see Part One—gave us a deeper elucidation of this reality.)
With Berger’s words in mind, we might invoke H.L. Mencken’s maxim, ‘The whole aim of practical politics is to keep the populace alarmed (and hence clamorous to be led to safety) by conjuring an endless series of hobgoblins, all of them imaginary’. This seems an apt descriptor for the manner and means by which the Zionists have captured the imagination of Jew and Gentile alike. In the course of doing so, they’ve deeply inculcated in the minds of so many their bespoke mythology, their oft-proclaimed unique place in history and in the human pantheon.
From the lofty heights of political power and influence then, to the lower, less rarefied echelons of ordinary people in the Western world and beyond, this was progressively buttressed by an unyielding belief in their much-espoused Biblical destiny, in order to impose their sub rosa agenda (what Reed termed the “Grand Design”) on the world at large. Though it might be more accurate to say it was this “destiny”, the unique mystique of which was so ingrained into the collective psyches of Jews, that the Zionists saw fit to leverage in order to achieve their goals.
This conclusion is perhaps best summed in the words of Ilan Pappe, who suggested: ‘Most Zionists don't believe that God exists, but they do believe that he promised them Palestine.’ Either way, hands down then the most ‘imaginative’ hobgoblin in the “series” ever conjured to both serve and defend The Cause in modern times was, and remains, ‘anti-Semitism’?
(Perhaps the largely confected Jewish sense of ‘victimhood’ combined with the collective, contrived Gentile guilt over the “Holocaust” runs a close second, with Norman Finkelstein’s book The Holocaust Industryelucidating clearly how these have been politicised, weaponised and monetised to serve Zionist ends. Again, more on this in future instalments.)
This is hardly a viewpoint peculiar to Gentile thinking by any means. In the words of another prominent ‘self-loathing’ (i.e. heretical) Jew, one Alfred Lilienthal, a man who had little little truck with this all-purpose epithet so readily conjured by his brethren at the faintest slight regardless of its nature, rationale or cause. ‘The failure’ he said ‘of the powerful and wealthy Jewish American community to launch one objective scholarly study of the causes of anti-Semitism is significant.’ Lilienthal was herein unambiguously questioning their motives, and for good reason. He added:
‘Neither the religious nor the lay leaders of the many Jewish organisations wish to lose this potent weapon. Remove prejudice and lose adherents to the faith…This is the conspiracy of the rabbinate, Jewish nationalists and other leaders of organised Jewry to keep the problems of prejudice alive.’
As for investigating its causes, for his part George Orwell, someone who himself was often the recipient of the appellation, earlier had riffed on a similar theme: ‘Anti-semitism should be investigated—and I will not say by anti-Semites, but at any rate by people who know that they are not immune to that kind of emotion...it would probably be best to start, not by debunking anti-semitism, but by marshalling all the justifications for it that can be found, in one's own mind or anybody else's’. (See link here.)
— The Four Beginnings Revisited
With this in mind, to the best of this writer’s knowledge, no serious investment by the Jewish power elites and the guardians of the myth—and the aforesaid “unique mystique” which envelops it—has been committed to investigating the causes of anti-Semitism since Lilienthal made this observation, much less “marshalling all the justifications for it etc….”.
The implications of this observation are considerable. This, even more so when we consider that Lilienthal penned these words back in 1965. Some of these “implications” will be explored in our narrative going forward. Suffice to say that Lilienthal saw Zionism in much the same light as did his fellow apostate Rabbi Berger, and so many others. All of which is to say, that to investigate the causes of anti-Semitism would risk as it were, cooking the golden goose.
Put another way, to the extent it genuinely manifests itself, as the historical record amply illustrates from antiquity to the here and now, the root causes of “anti-Semitism” can be traced back to how Jews as a social grouping see fit to behave and act as a collective in their own interests, often against the interests of those not part of The Tribe. It is not as most would have us believe the result of some primal hatred or irrational prejudice directed at them willy-nilly by non-Jews because of their religion, race or ethnic identity. This is arguably the longest standing, and most persistent, of all of the prevailing myths!
Further, if anti-Semitism did not exist (even if perceived more in the abstract than the concrete), something like it would have had to be invented in order for them to ultimately transform their “Grand Design” into a tangible reality. It’s notable that no other discrete form of prejudice, bigotry, or enmity directed towards any specific group of human beings—racial, ethnic, religious, national—comes with its very own bespoke classification, identifier or marque, almost as if it were a proprietary brand of sorts so as to distinguish it from any other variant of animus that might run rampant in the psychopathology of the human condition. One wonders why Jewish folks might get to claim exclusive bragging rights in this respect. All this coming from a ‘tribal’ entity whose own ethnocentricity and disdain for The Other is legendary, perhaps the most extreme of its kind. For those doubting this, a casual browse through “The Talmud for Dummies*” will dispel any contrary notions herein.
But it isn’t to this writer’s way of thinking the religious, social, cultural or ethnic characteristics of Jewry which sets them apart from the rest of mankind, and which has garnered them the most opprobrium throughout the millennia, though as it is with any sort of racism or discrimination to be sure this is an integral part of the prejudicial mix that is “anti-Semitism”. This is especially so when we consider the ahistorical inaccuracy, indeed absurdity of its etymology. Few modern Jews can lay legitimate claim to being descendants of any of the original Semitic peoples (or tribes) of “Israel” or Palestine, rendering any title to the real estate therein null and void. (Readers should seek out Arthur Koestler’s The Thirteenth Tribe—touched on in Part One—for further elucidation here.)
Quite apart from all that, if we view “anti-Semitism” as the all purpose adhesive that has held the tribe together to this day—this being an ages-old, well-documented, and irrefutable ambition of the ‘priestly castes’ from the Levites to the Pharisees, through to present day Zionists—then any diminution of its potency spells the death-knell of their own power to impose the Talmudic agenda upon the lesser members of the tribe and by extension, over the detested ‘goyim’.
In summing up our ‘Hebrew’ brethren—at least those who adhere to the characteristics and qualities which attract such approbation and resentment from their Gentile fellows—perhaps there is no better way to round out our narrative than to namecheck the 4th century BC Chinese philosopher Mencius, who once penned the following:
‘This is why I say that all men have a sense of commiseration: here is a man who suddenly notices a child about to falI into a well. Invariably he will feel a sense of alarm and compassion. And this is not for the purpose of gaining the favor of the child's parents or of seeking the approbation of his neighbors and friends, or for fear of blame should he fail to rescue it. Thus we see that no man is without a sense of compassion or a sense of shame or a sense of courtesy or a sense of right and wrong. The sense of compassion is the beginning of humanity, the sense of shame is the beginning of righteousness, and sense of courtesy is the beginning of decorum, the sense of right and wrong is the beginning of wisdom. Every man has within himself these four beginnings, just as he has four limbs. Since everyone has these four beginnings within him, the man who considers himself incapable of exercising them is destroying himself.’
There’s a lesson or three for the Tribe and its supporters in what Mencius had to say. I’ll leave readers—Jewish and non-Jewish—to ponder these until our next instalment. There’s much to chow down on to be sure, although this writer cannot guarantee for the “Brethren” the repast will always be kosher!
Greg Mayburyis a freelance writer based in Australia. His main areas of interest are American history and politics in general, with a special focus on economic, financial, national security, military, and geopolitical affairs. For 8 years he has regularly contributed to a diverse range of alternative, independent media (AIM), news and opinion sites, including OpEd News, The Greanville Post, Consortium News, Information Clearing House (ICH), Dandelion Salad, Global Research, Dissident Voice, OffGuardian, Contra Corner, International Policy Digest, Principia Scientific, The Hampton Institute, and others.
Some fragments: "They" have a royal family. (those of the red shield) Mr Balfour illegally bequeathed Palestine to Rothschild as "a home for the jews" NOT to the jews. Its The royal families private estate. The estate is managed by jews. Its real strategic purpose is to guard the Suez canal For the Red shield "royal family" control of trading routes. E>< W><E.
The rent extracted from the estate managers is to de-platform The religious Arabs in that region. And to aid that they get carte Blanche . backed by Nuclear armaments .
The Federal Reserve is The redshields Business estate. The Americans get to guard THAT estate , once again with Carte Blanche, and nuclear armaments .
It troubles me somewhat that I can connect blaming Israel to gatekeeping for Rothschilds.
Perhaps I overthink eh? But If the victimhood of the jews is a good defence for the jews. Then it surely makes reasonable sense to appropriate THAT defence as a feasible front of house alarm system .
Any hoo..!! be that as it may. As a prudent gardener might use a particular insect to protect a certain crop for a profitable trade. It can be seen like this.
Great work Greg, so grateful to come across your SS. This is coming from a life long supporter and adulator of everything Jewish who started waking up several months ago. I'm well on my eyes opening journey. I like your style,
it is a pleasure to read whilst educating myself. Greatly appreciated.
Some fragments: "They" have a royal family. (those of the red shield) Mr Balfour illegally bequeathed Palestine to Rothschild as "a home for the jews" NOT to the jews. Its The royal families private estate. The estate is managed by jews. Its real strategic purpose is to guard the Suez canal For the Red shield "royal family" control of trading routes. E>< W><E.
The rent extracted from the estate managers is to de-platform The religious Arabs in that region. And to aid that they get carte Blanche . backed by Nuclear armaments .
The Federal Reserve is The redshields Business estate. The Americans get to guard THAT estate , once again with Carte Blanche, and nuclear armaments .
It troubles me somewhat that I can connect blaming Israel to gatekeeping for Rothschilds.
Perhaps I overthink eh? But If the victimhood of the jews is a good defence for the jews. Then it surely makes reasonable sense to appropriate THAT defence as a feasible front of house alarm system .
Any hoo..!! be that as it may. As a prudent gardener might use a particular insect to protect a certain crop for a profitable trade. It can be seen like this.
Great work Greg, so grateful to come across your SS. This is coming from a life long supporter and adulator of everything Jewish who started waking up several months ago. I'm well on my eyes opening journey. I like your style,
it is a pleasure to read whilst educating myself. Greatly appreciated.