Barry Grey

Having launched yet another illegal war, President Barack Obama came before the United Nations Wednesday to justify American actions around the world and demand that all nations fall into line behind the US drive for world hegemony.

The speech was a collection of declamations, threats and ultimatums linked together by hollow slogans and clichés. It was delivered in a halting, ritualistic manner, one pronouncement following another, separated by long pauses and a pursing of the lips, without any attempt to make a coherent argument.

But what above all distinguished the speech was the complete disconnect between its assertions and political reality. Obama’s lies were so extreme and brazen, they took on a delusional character. When the world political situation has reached a point where those in power cannot acknowledge a single truth, this in itself is an expression of an extraordinary level of crisis of the entire political and economic order.

All the lies and hypocrisy were summed up in Obama’s denunciation of “a vision of the world in which might makes right—a world in which one nation’s borders can be redrawn by another… America stands for something different,” he claimed:

“We believe that right makes might—that bigger nations should not be able to bully smaller ones; that people should be able to choose their own future.”

This statement was made by the representative of the world’s most violent and menacing country, one that has, in direct violation of the UN charter, made preventive war the foundation of its foreign policy, proclaiming an unlimited right to intervene militarily wherever its economic, political or geostrategic interests are at stake.

More »

Arthur Aouizerat

Article taken from E&R Brest. Note by Gilad Atzmon: I didn’t write the following article. It is a translation from French. I share this article today because it raised some very troubling issues to do with the deceitful nature of Jewish Left. I guess that by now, it would be impossible to sweep that shame under the carpet.

Through his great historical work, the Israeli historian Israel Shahak(1)demonstrated the relationship between Talmudic Judaism and Zionism. If you happen to reside in France, to properly understand this relationship you need only observe number one sayan (Embedded Israeli agent) Bernard-Henri Levy, as he promotes his Talmudic ideology in support of Israel. The Talmudic-Judaism, as seen in both the Talmud and the Torah is simply law codified in the service of Jewish ideology.

But Bernard-Henri Levy is more than happy to say he acts ‘as a Jew’, but what does that mean? According to Gilad Atzmon’s classification (2), the problem lies not with those Jews who just happen to be born into Jewish families, nor with those religious Jews whose texts are interpreted through the ages. No, the problem is with those Jews who see the world ‘as Jews’ and who act in the world ‘as Jews’. It is this third category that carries and promotes Jewish ideology.

Culturally, this ideology can be understood as follows: ‘Jew’, transmitted through the blood of the mother, is a purely racial quality and cannot therefore be related to any acquired moral or universal qualities. So, when a Jew addresses a goy ‘as a Jew’ he/she simply highlights this racial quality and thus automatically defines the goy, without that, as inherently inferior. In this third category are found Talmudic Jewish-Zionist practitioners, non-practicing Talmudic-Zionist Jews (3), secular non-Zionist Jewish leftists and even anti-Zionists. So we can say that the theologico-racial supremacism as observed in Israel by Zionist Jews is entirely consistent with Jewish ideology.

More »

Robert Parry

President Barack Obama talks with Ambassador to the United
Nations Samantha Power, a leading “liberal interventionist,”
following a Cabinet meeting in the Cabinet Room of the White
House, Sept. 12, 2013. (Photo by Pete Souza/White House)

The U.S. government likes international law when it serves Washington’s purposes, but not when it constrains U.S. desires to use military force. Then, the rules are bent, ignored or subjected to novel lawyering, as President Obama is doing with airstrikes into Syria.

The Obama administration has devised an extraordinary legal justification for carrying out bombing attacks inside Syria: that the United States and its Persian Gulf allies have the right to defend Iraq against the Islamic State because the Syrian government is unable to stop the cross-border terror group.

“The Syrian regime has shown that it cannot and will not confront these safe havens effectively itself,” said the U.S. letter delivered by Ambassador Samantha Power to United Nations officials. “Accordingly, the United States has initiated necessary and proportionate military actions in Syria in order to eliminate the ongoing ISIL [Islamic State] threat to Iraq, including by protecting Iraqi citizens from further attacks and by enabling Iraqi forces to regain control of Iraq’s borders.”

Yet, beyond the danger to world order if such an expansive theory is embraced by the international community (does anyone remember how World War One got started?), there is the hypocrisy of the U.S. government and many of those same Gulf allies arming, training and funding Syrian rebels for the purpose of preventing the Syrian military from controlling its territory and then citing that lack of control as the rationale to ignore Syria’s sovereignty. — In other words, the United States, Saudi Arabia, Qatar, Jordan and other enemies of Syria covertly backed the rebels inside Syria and watched as many of them – including thousands of the U.S.-preferred “moderates” – took their newly acquired military skills to al-Qaeda affiliates and other terrorist organizations. Then, the U.S. and its allies have the audacity to point to the existence of those terror groups inside Syria as a rationale for flying bombing raids into Syria.

More »