“To learn who rules over you, simply find out who you are not allowed to criticize”
Dear new-to-this blog friends,
Why do I speak of “AngloZionists”? Here is my rationale for the use of this term:
“The USA is an Empire. With roughly 1000 overseas bases (depends on how you count), a indeniably messianic ideology, a bigger defense offense budget then the rest of the planet combined, 16+ spy agencies, the dollar as work currency there is no doubt that the US is a planetary Empire. Where did the US Empire come from? Again, that’s a no brainer – from the British Empire. Furthermore, the US Empire is really based on a select group of nations: the Echelon countries, Australia, Canada, New Zealand, the UK and, of course, the US. What do these countries have in common? They are the leftovers of the British Empire and they are all English speaking. Notice that France, Germany or Japan are not part of this elite even though they are arguably as important or more to the USA then, say, New Zealand and far more powerful. So the “Anglo” part is undeniable. And yet, even though “Anglo” is an ethnic/linguistic/cultural category while “Zionist” is a political/ideological one, very rarely do I get an objection about speaking of “Anglos” or the “Anglosphere”.
Let’s take the (hyper politically correct) Wikipedia definition of what the word “Zionism” means: it is “a nationalist movement of Jews and Jewish culture that supports the creation of a Jewish homeland in the territory defined as the Land of Israel”. Apparently, no link to the US, the Ukraine or Timbuktu, right? But think again. Why would Jews – whether defined as a religion or an ethnicity – need a homeland anyway? Why can’t they just live wherever they are born, just like Buddhist (a religion) or the African Bushmen (ethnicity) who live in many different countries? The canonical answer is that Jews have been persecuted everywhere and that therefore they need their own homeland to serve as a safe haven in case of persecutions. Without going into the issue of why Jews were persecuted everywhere and, apparently, in all times, this rationale clearly implies if not the inevitability of more persecutions or, at the very least, a high risk thereof. Let’s accept that for demonstration sake and see what this, in turn, implies. First, that implies that Jews are inherently threatened by non-Jews who are all at least potential anti-Semites. The threat is so severe that a separate Gentile-free homeland must be created as the only, best and last way to protect Jews worldwide. This, in turn, implies that the continued existence of this homeland should become an vital and irreplaceable priority of all Jews worldwide lest a persecution suddenly breaks out and they have nowhere to go. Furthermore, until all Jews finally “move up” to Israel, they better be very, very careful as all the goyim around them could literally come down with a sudden case of genocidal anti-Semitism at any moment. Hence all the anti-anti-Semitic organizations a la ADL or UEJF, the Betar clubs, the network of sayanim, etc. In other words, far from being a local “dealing with Israel only” phenomenon, Zionism is a worldwide movement whose aim is to protect Jews from the apparently incurable anti-Semitism of the rest of the planet. As Israel Shahak correctly identified it, Zionism postulates that Jews should “think locally and act globally” and when given a choice of policies always ask THE crucial question: “But is it good for Jews?”. So far from being only focused on Israel, Zionism is really a global, planetary, ideology which unequivocally split up all of mankind into two groups (Jews and Gentiles), which assumes that the latter are all potential genocidal maniacs (which is racist) and believes that saving Jewish lives is qualitatively different and more important than saving Gentile lives (which is racist again). Anyone doubting the ferocity of this determination should either ask a Palestinian or study the holiday of Purim, or both. Even better, read Gilad Atzmon and look up his definition of what is brilliantly called “pre-traumatic stress disorder”
The British Empire and the early USA used to be pretty much wall to wall Anglo. Sure, Jews had a strong influence (in banking for example), but Zionism was a non-issue not only amongst non-Jews, but also amongst US Jews. Besides, religious Jews were often very hostile to the notion of a secular Israel while secular Jews did not really care about this quasi Biblical notion. WWII definitely gave a massive boost to the Zionist movement while, as Norman Finkelstein explained it, the topic of the “Holocaust” became central to Jewish discourse and identity only many years later. I won’t go into the history of the rise to power of Jews in the USA, but from roughly Ford to GW Bush’s Neocons it has been steady. And even though Obama initially pushed them out, they came right back in through the backdoor. Right now, the only question is whether US Jews have more power than US Anglos or the other way around. Before going any further, let me also immediately say that I am not talking about Jews or Anglos as a group, but I am referring to the top 1% within each of these groups. Furthermore, I don’t believe that the top 1% of Jews cares any more about Israel or the 99% of Jews than the top 1% of Anglos care about the USA or the Anglo people. So, here my thesis:
The US Empire is run by a 1% (or less) elite which can be called the “deep state” which is composed of two main groups: Anglos and Jews. These two groups are in many ways hostile to each other (just like the SS and SA or Trotskysts and Stalinists), but they share 1) a racist outlook on the rest of mankind 2) a messianic ideology 3) a phenomenal propensity for violence 4) an obsession with money and greed and its power to corrupt. So they work together almost all the time.
Now this might seem basic, but so many people miss it, that I will have to explicitly state it: to say that most US elites are Anglos or Jews does not mean that most Anglos or Jews are part of the US elites. That is a straw-man argument which deliberately ignores the non commutative property of my thesis to turn it into a racist statement which accuses most/all Anglos or Jews of some evil doing. So to be very clear:
When I speak of AngloZionist Empire I am referring to the predominant ideology of the 1%ers elites which for this Empire’s “deep state”.
By the way, there are non-Jewish Zionists (Biden, in his own words) and there are (plenty of) anti-Zionist Jews. Likewise, there are non-Anglo imperialists and there are (plenty of) anti-imperialists Anglos. To speak of “Nazi Germany” or “Soviet Russia” does in now way imply that all Germans were Nazis or all Russians Communists. All this means is that the predominant ideology of these nations at that specific moment in time was National-Socialism and Marxism, that’s all.
My personal opinion now
First, I don’t believe that Jews are a race or an ethnicity. I always doubted that, but reading Shlomo Sand really convinced me. Jews are not defined by religion either (most/many are secular). Truly, Jews are a tribe. A group one can chose to join (Elizabeth Taylor) or leave (Gilad Atzmon). In other words, I see “Jewishness” as a culture, or ideology, or education or any other number of things, but not something rooted in biology. I fully agree with Atzmon when he says that Jews are not a race, but that Jewish culture/politics/ideology is racist. Second, I don’t even believe that the concept of “race” has been properly defined and, hence, that it has any objective meaning. I therefore don’t differentiate between human beings on the basis of an undefined criterion. Third, since being Jew (or not) is a choice, one to belong, adhere and endorse a tribe (secular Jews) or a religion (Judaics). Any choice implies a judgment call and is therefore a legitimate target for scrutiny and criticism. Fourth, I believe that Zionism, even when secular, instrumentalizes the values, ideas, myths and ethos of rabbinical Judaism (aka “Talmudism” or “Phariseism”) and both are racist in their core value and assumptions. Fifth, both Zionism and Nazism are twin brothers born from the same ugly womb: 19th century European nationalism (Brecht was right, “The belly is still fertile from which the foul beast sprang”). Nazis and Zionists can hate each other to their hearts’ content, but they are still twins. Sixth, I reject any and all form of racism as a denial of our common humanity, a denial of the freedom of choice of each human being and – being an Orthodox Christian – as a grievous heresy. To me people who chose to identify themselves with, and as, Jews are not inherently different from any other human and they deserve no more and no less rights and protections than any other human being.
I will note here that while the vast majority of my readers of Anglos, they almost never complain about the “Anglo” part of my “AngloZionist” descriptor. The vast majority of objections focus on the “Zionist” part. You might want to think long and hard about why this is so and what it tells us about the kind of power Zionists have over the prevailing ideology. Could it be linked to the reason why the (openly racist and truly genocidal) Israeli Prime Minister gets more standing ovations in Congress (29) than the US President (25)?
Q: it makes you sound like a Nazi/redneck/racist/idiot/etc.
A: I don’t care. I don’t write this blog for brainwashed zombies.
Q: you turn people off.
A: if by speaking the truth and using correct descriptors I turn them off, then this blog is not for them.
Q: you can offend Jews.
A: only those who believe that their ideas cannot be challenged or criticized.
Q: but you will lose readers!!
A: this is not a popularity contest.
Q: your intentions might be good, but they are easily misinterpreted.
A: this is why I define my words very carefully and strictly.
Q: but why are you so stubborn about this?
A: because I am sick and tired of those in power hiding in the dark: let’s expose them and freely challenge them. How can you challenge something which is hidden?
Q: but I am a hasbarachnik and I need to get you to stop using that expression!!
A: give it up and find an easier target for your efforts. You will still get paid.
Q: I have a much better term.
A: Good! Use it on your blog then :-P
That’s it for now.
Actually no, there is one more thing, while I am at it:
“The Ukraine” vs “Ukraine”
Open message to those objecting to my use of the article ‘the’ in front of the word “Ukraine”: before lecturing others, learn Russian and learn a little something about the history of the Ukraine :-P
In conclusion, a plea: can we pretty please stop this nonsense now? There are far more important things to analyze and worry about than my use of this or that expression, word or description. If you don’t like it – great. Just consider that I am wrong (-: I often am, so I won’t take offense :-). Can we please stop pretending like Jews and Jewish related issues are The Most Important Thing In The Universe (TMITITU) and deal with the really important issues?
Addendum: American. I guess I should also explain why I do use the word “American” when the correct word would be “USAn” or “United Statesian” or something equally ugly. Well, precisely: these are ugly. Alas, there is no equivalent in English to the Spanish “Estadounidense“. The same thing for Russian which also lacks such a word and uses “Amerikanets/Amerikanskii” instead. Okay, I know. the USA is a small subsection of the Americas and Americans are obnoxious (and ignorant) for calling themselves “Americans”. But, in truth, “USAns” are “Americans” since they live in the Americas, it’s just the implied exclusion of the others from that category which is so irritating. So, anyway, I apologize for this surrender to modern-speak but I just don’t have the courage to fight this losing battle and, frankly, I have bigger fish to fry. But yeah – I am therefore guilty as charged :-)
Update: I have been trying to use “US Americans” recently. So far, no complaints. Maybe that is a solution?