Edward Curtin

If you like my work, which I offer freely, please consider buying my book, Seeking Truth in A Country of Lies.

While the so-called liberal and conservative media – all stenographers for the intelligence agencies – pour forth the most blatant propaganda about Russia and Ukraine that is so conspicuous that it is comedic if it weren’t so dangerous, the self-depicted cognoscenti also ingest subtler messages, often from the alternative media.

A woman I know and who knows my sociological analyses of propaganda contacted me to tell me there was an excellent article about the war in Ukraine at The Intercept, an on-line publication funded by billionaire Pierre Omidyar I have long considered a leading example of much deceptive reporting wherein truth is mixed with falsehoods to convey a “liberal” narrative that fundamentally supports the ruling elites while seeming to oppose them. This, of course, is nothing new since it’s been the modus operandi of all corporate media in their own ideological and disingenuous ways, such as The New York Times, CBS, the Washington Post, the New York Daily News, Fox News, CNN, NBC, etc. for a very long time.

Nevertheless, out of respect for her judgment and knowing how deeply she feels for all suffering people, I read the article. Written by Alice Speri, its title sounded ambiguous – “The Left in Europe Confronts NATO’s Resurgence After Russia’s Invasion of Ukraine” – until I saw the subtitle that begins with these words: “Russia’s brutal invasion complicates…” But I read on. By the fourth paragraph, it became clear where this article was going. Speri writes that “In Ukraine, by contrast [with Iraq], it was Russia that had staged an illegal, unprovoked invasion, and U.S.-led support to Ukraine was understood by many as crucial to stave off even worse atrocities than those the Russian military had already committed.” [my emphasis]

More »

eugyppius

Preliminary plans for Operation Barbarossa, with
the southern arm of the German attack proceeding
through the open plains of Ukraine.

Some have asked for my thoughts on Ukraine.

Since 2014, the Ukraine has been experiencing a quiet civil war, between the Ukrainian majority in the west, and a Russian minority concentrated in the east. The Ukrainian side in this conflicted has been co-opted by the supranational global imperial monolith. This is the cadre of western elites that determines political, medical and cultural orthodoxy across the whole world. They control not only all major political parties in most western countries, but also global international consortia from the United Nations to the World Economic Forum to the European Union to the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation. Their goal is to further squeeze Russia by turning Ukraine – including the Russian-speaking eastern regions – into another political constituent of American globalism.

To the Russians – many Russians – this is unacceptable. After the Soviet Union collapsed, the globalists descended upon Russia to rape and pillage.

In the years after 2000, NATO expansion was used to hem in Russia along the Baltic. These were hard years, but Russia finally reasserted its sovereignty. Since then, the western globalists have considered unaligned Russia to be their enemy, and they have adopted Ukraine as a convenient proxy against her. Ukraine is useful for this purpose, because it has considerable strategic significance, whether as a gateway to Russia through the open Ukrainian plains, or as a staging ground for American missiles.

More »

Mark Crispin Miller

University of Nevada 2022: Left-wing students demand the reimposi-
tion of the university's micromanagement of their personal behaviour.

While all eyes have been on Canada, there also have been massive Freedom Convoys, and joyous multitudes applauding them, and turning out to help them, all around the world. We’re seeing it (despite the usual blackout by the quisling media) in Australia, where 1.4 million vehicles, and between one and two million protestors, have taken over Canberra, Australia’s capital, the people calling for an end to all restrictions, and the ouster of that once-free country’s quisling politicians. There, too, the biggest protest in that nation’s history has been just as peaceful as it is diverse—a wondrous mass display of solidarity, to re-assert our fundamental human rights, spontaneously led by many thousands of real workers.

So where’s “the left”? Australia’s “left” is on the other side—just like “the left” in the United States and Canada, there being no diversity among them, as they’re all one in their boiling hatred of that mass resistance, and in fanatical support of the state/corporate juggernaut coercing universal “vaccination.” So, on this unprecedented global confrontation, there is no disagreement whatsoever between US “leftists” like Noam Chomsky (the first public figure to propose detention of the “unvaccinated), Amy Goodman, Michael Moore (“Get off my fucking bridge!”), Chris Hedges, Thom Hartmann, the Trotskyites at WSWS (World Socialist Web Site), Sen. Bernie Sanders and Stalinist noisemaker Bob Avakian, the liberals at MoveOn, and many of the “woke” contributors to Truthout, Nation of Change, Truthdig, Counterpunch, Portside, the Progressive and The Nation. Nor, on this working-class resistance to the bio-fascist order, is the fearfully like-minded US “left” in any disagreement with its counterpart in Canada, typified by Naomi Klein (who deems the Great Reset a “boring” topic), Henry A. Giroux (who says the truckers are attempting to destroy democracy), “woke” neo-Nazi Justin Trudeau (whose government trained Ukraine’s feral National Guard), and the sanctimonious rabble of Canada’s “left” parties (and let’s throw Neil Young in there, too); so that “the left” throughout all North America is absolutely unified against the workers.

More »

Gilad Atzmon

GA: The following is my book review of Shlomo Sand's latest book. It was published a year ago. Following the publication of the English edition of How I Stopped Being A Jew last week, I decided to post it again.

Sand’s latest book, How I Stopped Being A Jew, is a tragic testimony made by a morally awakened Israeli Jew who comes to realise that his spiritual, cultural and political existence is contaminated with Judeo-centric exclusivism and is fuelled by ethno-centric racism. Shlomo Sand decides to stop being a Jew – but has he succeeded?

Sand, as we all know, is a wonderful writer; witty, innovative, poetic and fluent, his voice is personal, at times funny, occasionally sarcastic and always genuinely pessimistic.

Sand’s writing is scholarly, deep, reflective and imaginative; however, his scholarship is pretty much limited to French liberal thinking and early post-modernist theory. The outcome is disappointing at times. How I Stopped To Be A Jew is a ‘politically correct’ text, saturated with endless caveats inserted to disassociate the author from any possible affiliation with anyone who may be viewed as an opponent of Jewish power, critical of Jewish identity politics or a challenger of the mainstream historicity of the Holocaust.

“I don’t write for anti-Semites, I regard them as totally ignorant or people who suffer from an incurable disease,” (p. 21/Hebrew edition) writes the author who claims to be humanist, universalist and far removed from Jewish exclusivism.[*] It all sounds very Jewish to me. When it comes to the Holocaust, Sand uses the same tactic and somehow manages to lose all wit and scholarly fashion. The Nazis are “beasts”, their rise to power metaphorically described as a “beast awakening from its lair.” I would expect a leading historian and ex-Jew to have moved on beyond these kinds of banal clichés.

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 »

Paul Craig Roberts

Israel Is Stealing and Murdering Its Way Through Palestine

Readers are asking for my take on the Israel-Gaza situation, and, believe it or not, Oxford University’s famous debating society, the Oxford Union, invited me to debate the issue.

I replied to the Oxford Union that I was unprepared to take responsibility for the Palestinians without undergoing the extensive preparation that an Oxford Union debate deserves and requires. Unless things have changed since my time at Oxford, one prevails in a Union debate by anticipating every argument of one’s opponent and smashing the arguments with humor and wit. Facts seldom, if ever, carry the day, and sometimes not even wit and humor if the audience is already committed to the outcome by the prevailing propaganda. There is no time or energy in my overfull schedule for such preparation plus time away and jet lag.

Moreover, I am not an expert on Israel’s conquest and occupation of Palestine. I know more than most people. I was rescued from Zionist propaganda by Israeli historians, such as Ilan Pappe, by Jewish intellectuals, such as Noam Chomsky and Norman Finkelstein, by documentary film makers, such as John Pilger, by Israeli journalists such as Uri Avnery and the Israeli newspaper Haaretz, and by an Israeli houseguest who is an Israeli member of an Israeli peace group that opposes Israeli destruction of Palestinian homes, villages, and orchards in order to build apartment blocks for settlers. There is only one take on the current Israeli slaughter of Palestinians, which Netanyahu, the demonic Israeli leader, declares will be a “protracted campaign” this time.

More »

Alimuddin Usmani interviews Gilad Atzmon

#PalestineUnderAttack

Alimuddin Usmani: After "Cast Lead" in 2009 and "Pillar of Defense" in 2012, the Israeli army has launched operation "Protective Edge" in July, 2014 against Gaza. What is the purpose of these repeated large scale military operations?

Gilad Atzmon: It is important to note that Israel hasn't won a single military battle since 1973. True, it has killed many Arabs, but it hasn't managed to achieve any of its military objectives.

Israel’s military domination has been sustained by the power of deterrence. The strategy was to force Arabs to avoid conflict by threatening that they could lose everything. This week has shown that this trick won't work anymore. Palestinian resistance has sprung back to life.

Israel can not solve its problems by military means. The situation is desperate for the Israelis. They have started to realize that they are stuck within a political, ideological and cultural stalemate. Israel is unable to conjure an image of a resolution. There is no prospect of future for the Jewish State.

Furthermore, the Jewish left's blatant lie that the ‘occupation is the problem’ has been exposed this week as we witness Israeli Arab citizens chased by Jewish mobs. As we know, the right-wing call for mass expulsion of all Arabs from Israeli territory is becoming increasingly popular within Israel. This brutal ‘solution’ is totally consistent with Jewish supremacist culture and ideology. After all, Jews, and I mean both Zionists and anti, like to operate within a Jews only environment. But can Israel rid itself of the Palestinians? This is exactly what the Right wing parties within the coalition promise to do.

Back to your question; since the military cannot provide the answers and the politicians cannot produce an image of a solution, the military is used as a firemen's brigade. It supplies short lived victories. The IDF is buying time, it cannot deliver a victory because military objectives cannot even be articulated. The IDF pounds Gaza with missiles, it kills whatever it suspects might be dangerous (a lot of kids, elders and women). But as time goes by, the military options are shrinking and to a certain extent, are not viable any more.

The German military theorist, Carl von Clausewitz suggested in the 19th century that “war is the continuation of politics by other means.” In the case of Israel what we see instead is the reverse of Clausewitz’ idea: Israeli politics is the continuation of the Jewish need for a conflict.

More »

Gilad Atzmon

In his latest article in The Nation, Noam Chomsky cherry picks the facts that fit his preferred narrative, while ignoring and disguising relevant details that contradict his thesis. One would expect an academic of Chomsky’s stature to perform at a much higher standard of intellectual integrity.

Reviewing Chomsky’s latest criticism of the BDS reveals that the MIT linguist borders on deception. It is especially fascinating to examine Chomsky’s tactics in light of the current violent events in Israel/Palestine.

Chomsky writes, “The opening call of the BDS movement, by a group of Palestinian intellectuals in 2005, demanded that Israel fully comply with international law by “(1) Ending its occupation and colonization of all Arab lands occupied in June 1967 and dismantling the Wall.”

This is simply not true. In July 2005 BDS’ first goal read rather differently – “(1). Ending its occupation and colonization of all Arab lands and dismantling the Wall.”

In 2005 the first BDS goal didn’t include any reference to 1967 as Noam Chomsky suggests. It expressed opposition to the Israeli occupation of the entire land of historic Palestine. This goal was very upsetting for Jews and especially distressful to members of the Jewish Left. For them, the meaning was obvious; it implied that the Zionist project was a pure land grab. Then, at some unknown date around 2010 and without any protocol that suggested a formal decision, the goal changed as if by ‘magic’ and the words “occupied in June 1967” were added.

Attempts to discover who, within the BDS movement, had made the change didn’t reveal any answers. We do know, however, that the change followed growing pressure from Jewish anti Zionists within the BDS movement. We also know that the change occurred when BDS formed a dependence on EU money and Wall Street financers such as George Soros. I would like to believe that Chomsky, who is a meticulous researcher who doesn’t miss details, is well aware of this change in BDS’ Goal statement. However, it may as well be possible that I am totally wrong and Chomsky was not aware of this BDS saga at the time he wrote his article.

More »

John McMurtry

"American Progress," or "Manifest Destiny." Painting
shows an American woman in the sky guiding pioneers
westward. (G. A. Crofutt, c. 1873.)(Library of Congress)

(Originally published in May 2003)

“It is easy. All you have to do is tell the people they are being attacked, and denounce the peacemakers for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger.” ~ Hermann Goering

Genocide used to be a crime without a name. Although the most heinous of all crimes, the concept was not introduced into international language until after World War 2. Until then, military invasion and destruction of other peoples and cultures masqueraded under such slogans as progress and spreading civilisation.

I was shocked many years ago when I heard Noam Chomsky say that genocide was America’s defining political tradition. Then I realised that the United States (like Canada to a much lesser extent) was based on destroying the lives and cultures of the 25 million or so first peoples who had lived in America for millennia. In the case of the U.S., the story continued with the forcible seizure of Texas in 1845 from Mexican farmers and indigenous peoples, and Nevada, New Mexico, Arizona, California and other state territories shortly afterward in 1849. U.S. troops under the slave-owning General Zachary Taylor unilaterally invaded its southern neighbour under the false pretext of avenging American blood, and General Taylor soon vaulted into the White House as a presidential war hero. Even though a young Congressman, Abraham Lincoln, exposed the pretext, and connected it to a Anglo-British business strategy to impose free trade on the regions by financing the prior president, James Polk, into the White House as General Taylor’s commander.

In 1898, once again under the false pretext of self-defence (when the U.S.S. Maine sank from an internal explosion), the Philippines, Guam, Cuba in part, and Puerto Rico were seized from their peoples by another unilaterally provoked war. This war of aggression and occupation, like so many U.S. interventions since, was preceded by a media campaign of whipping up public hysteria and war fever. Media baron Randolf Hearst made the famous remark, “You furnish the pictures, I’ll furnish the war,” not unlike the U.S. cable and network media daily drum-beat in recent months for war on Iraq. War is a major violence entertainment, and in close partnership with the Pentagon it can go on for months to divert the masses.

More »

Kevin Barrett

Russian President Vladimir Putin with Patriarch Kirill I of
Moscow (also Primate of the Russian Orthodox Church)

In the wake of Crimea's independence referendum, Hillary Clinton says Russian President Putin is a "new Hitler." Zbigniew Brezezinski, former National Security Advisor agrees, calling Putin not just another Hitler, but also a thug, a menace, a Mafia gangster, and a Mussolini. The Western mainstream media echoes this childish name-calling.

Why is the whole Western foreign policy establishment so afraid of Putin?

Because Putin is standing up against Western aggression – not only in Ukraine, but also in Syria and Iran. Ongoing Western attempts to destabilize these and other countries are just the most recent examples of a decades-old pattern of aggression. The long-term goal: Total destruction of traditional nations and values, and the creation of a New World Order global dictatorship.

Since the 1953 CIA-MI6 coup in Iran, the West has been using the same formula to overthrow legitimate but uncooperative leaders: First, sabotage the country's economy. Then bribe corrupt military officers and thugs and pay rent-a-mobs to create chaos in the streets. Next (this step is optional) incite violence by paying snipers to fire into crowds – and maybe set off some bombs. Finally, send the corrupt military units and gangsters to overthrow the target nation's legitimate leader, murder or imprison his supporters, install a Western puppet in his place – and announce that "order has been restored."

The CIA did it to Iran's democratically-elected Prime Minister Mossadegh in 1953, to Indonesia's President Sukarno in 1965, and to Chile's Prime Minister Allende on September 11th, 1973. They did the same thing to Ukraine's legitimate president, Viktor Yanukovych, a few weeks ago. Neocon regime-change apparatchik Victoria Nuland (The assistant US secretary of state,) got caught admitting that the US had spent five billion dollars to overthrow Ukraine's democratically-elected government; and EU Foreign Affairs Chief Catherine Ashton was heard on tape discussing the "news" that the Maidan Square snipers were part of the US-sponsored coup.

More »