"Korea, as a regime arming with missiles and weapons of mass destruction, while starving its citizens. Iran, aggressively pursues these weapons and exports terror, while an unelected few repress the Iranian people's hope for freedom. Iraq continues to flaunt its hostility toward America and to support terror.
"States like these and their terrorist allies constitute an axis of evil, arming to threaten the peace of the world."
So read George Bush in his State of the Union address January 29, 2002. The effects of those words were immediate across the globe. Few nations -- whether they were America's friends or not, failed to denounce him. Germany and France cautioned him against attacking Iraq. Iraq ordered a general mobilization of its reserves. Iran responded by saying it will not yield to aggression -- and is now said to have opened its borders to allow al Qaeda members fleeing Afghanistan to go to Lebanon to join Iranian backed forces. North Korea denounced the attacks and by some press reports got its missiles and artillery ready -- just in case it needed to barrage the 38,000 US troops stationed just a few miles south of its border.
George the Second may have been mouthing these words, but it was not he who wrote them. As former New York Post editor Scott McConnell put it in his February 5, 2002 opinion column:
"The phrase, I heard in Washington last week, came from the glib pen of speechwriter David Frum, the former Weekly Standard editor."
That name rang a bell. David Frum. Your humble correspondent flipped back to "In Pursuit of Anti-Semitism Chapter II", from the National Review of March 16, 1992, the second in a series of long, rambling articles by an obviously terrified Bill Buckley, who was at the time trying to save himself from the nasty words being hurled in his direction because he continued to publish Joe Sobran -- a Catholic columnist, critical of Israel, under attack from the «neo-conservative» Jewish-Trotskyite vanguardists of the Republican Party. When Buckley published his own attack on Sobran, stating:
"Forgetting for the moment those who believe that every point of view should be evenhandedly ventilated, the question to ask here is: In a civilized culture, should someone who is, in the opinion of the reasonable community, an anti-Semite be removed from public forums?"
Before concluding "yes" and then rambling on for several pages using the words "Joe Sobran" and "anti-Semite" in close proximity to each other repeatedly, but never having the courage to either outright link them or outright deny the link. He didn't have to be explicit though -- the linkage was made, the process started -- an in October 1993, Sobran would be removed from National Review after 21 years of service, for, as Sobran told Pravda:
"directly disputing [with Buckley] ... and for saying he was 'jumpy about Jews.'"
David Frum had been one of many of the "neo-conservative" Trotskyites to write back, telling Buckley:
"I wanted you to know that in this house [your essay] was greeted with applause and thanks."
Of course, Buckley's abandonment of two of the fortresses of the Republican Old Right -- Joe Sobran and Pat Buchanan -- had been the beginning of the end of the Republican Party as a final bastion for semi-independent American politicians. Buckley, the old man of the right, the former CIA agent who was now the chief propagandist for the CIA's international interests, had caved to the other lobby that runs the country, and his shame was being paraded on the pages of National Review just as the shame of the Old Man of the Mountain was paraded before the Mongol hordes after the 13th Century defeat of the Assassins. And like the Old Man of the Mountain, these modern Mongols didn’t shed his royal blood -- instead they contented themselves with smothering him.
Ten years ago the Anglo-philic Protestant establishment in the Republican Party and their Old Right largely Catholic allies were attacked by ex-communists who had infiltrated their ranks. Instead of fighting back, the WASPs yielded, lacking the courage to purge these infiltrators, and fearing their prominent roles in the media and in shaping public opinion. When the Jewish neo-cons first came to the Anglo-Saxon Republicans, pretending to embrace Republican ideals, the Republicans embraced back, and gave the neo-cons a share of the leading positions. Now these Zionists had become entrenched, and used the positions they had been given to lead a purge.
Soon others would invade the National Review -- Michael Ledeen, the Mossad-CIA link during the Iran-Contra scandal; Jonah Goldberg, who's wife Jessica Gavora would be working with John Ashcroft as the moving force behind his police state; and the old evils -- the Podhoretzes and the Krauthammers and the Daniel Pipes and all the rest of the sewage of the American bourgeoisie would rush in once Buckley had removed the "Old Right" grates.
A decade after their initial revolt these infiltrators are pulling the ropes behind George Bush, wrapping his lips around their words, "Axis of Evil," and moving the nation, and the earth, closer to the brink of World War III. A deadly combination has formed -- the National Review 's staff now consists half of men who make profit off of war, and half of men who are driven ideologically to seek imperialist war for their national socialist homeland of Israel. Together, they have brought the world to where it stands now -- on the brink. Even with the extent of their evil not played out, it is deep -- how deep? Deeper than Atlantis.
One Lonely Little Guy
Joe Sobran is a man generous in spirit, even to his enemies. When asked to comment on how he felt about being purged by Jews from Republican ranks, he told Pravda:
"The problem isn't Jews; it's gutless gentiles."
And despite being the victim of racist, religiously biased, and generally hateful attacks, he has persisted in writings denunciations of anti-Semitism. As he stated plainly in that same issue of National Review as Buckley, above:
"[A] man who makes an anti-Semitic argument, one that arouses or appeals to hostility towards Jews … is in the wrong."
But there is no doubt that the men who drove Sobran from National Review 's pages were not only Jewish, but exclusively so. As he wrote later in a syndicated column entitled "How I Was Fired By Bill Buckley":
"Norman Podhoretz and his wife Midge Decter accused me of anti-Semitism."
And they weren’t the only ones. Marty Peretz, then editor of the New Republic, and a man who, a few years ago, when a friend of a friend’s used to date the daughter of one of his associates, had an award for political advocacy from the State of Israel sitting on his bookshelf next to a rack of rare editions of Spengler and pre-World War II German nationalist thinkers, joined in the attack. According to Buckley, writing in the infamous December 30, 1991 edition of the National Review:
"Peretz is terminally displeased with Sobran"
It didn’t stop there. It was an organized campaign of betrayal against an unsuspecting political coalition partner comparable to betrayal of the Mensheviks in the Bolshevik coup of 1917. Richard Cohen, now a proponent of a national ID card, wrote in the Washington Post:
"In Sobran’s case, the conduct in question is his writings, and those put his anti-Semitism beyond a doubt."
Alan Dershowitz, now a major advocate of torture and the repeal of the Fifth and Eighth Amendments, wrote in the second National Review on the subject:
"Private publications have a First Amendment right not to publish objectionable views."
But what about when all the publications given access to the federally limited number of television and radio broadcasters are all own by the same small clique? Can it be said that corporations through the means of cultural production undermine the First Amendment?
AM Rosenthal of the New York Times also wrote a letter to National Review, denying that the simultaneous attacks on Sobran and Buchanan represented the "old Jew-conspiracy bit," stating that his purely innocent and virtuous motivation in attacking the Old Right, while prompted by the ADL, had nothing to do with the ADL. As he said,
"I am delighted to thank the ADL for alerting me"
despite the fact that this of course had nothing to do with what he published.
And what started this? It was an article by Sobran questioning the wisdom of US-Israeli policy, expressing outrage at the Israeli invasion of Beiruit, and questioning why it was necessary for Jewish leaders to be constantly affirming to the rest of us that it is as wrong to kill a non-Jew as it is to kill a Jew. As Sobran put it in his April 1986 National Review column:
"Although the great theologian Moses Maimonides insisted that it is as wrong to kill a gentile as a Jew, it seems strange that this should ever have been a matter of controversy … Maimonides has been regarded in some quarters as heretical."
Sobran also made the mistake of pointing out the treason of John Pollard -- treason that was facilitated by the man who take his place as senior editor, Michael Ledeen, who got Pollard his job in the Department of the Navy. And his comments on the Friedman censorship case were embarrassing to the same AM Rosenthal that would launch his infamous Pearl Harbor-like attack on Buchanan later that year. As Buckley wrote in the December 30 National Review:
"Sobran wrote that Pulitzer Prize-winning Thomas Friedman of the New York Times had been suppressed by [AM Rosenthal] when he ‘wrote a path-breaking story describing the massive Israeli bombing of Beiruit as ‘indiscriminate’"
And it was also during that time that Israel destroyed a 14-story skyscraper with bombs because they believed that Yassir Arafat’s PLO was meeting there -- just as Mohammed Atta and his crew would destroy the American World Trade Center a decade and a half later.
On June 9, 1994 the Wanderer, a Catholic magazine, printed the following statement from Joe Sobran:
«A recent issue of National Review carried an article by Elliot Abrams, Norman Podhoretz’s son-in-law, blaming Christianity for anti-Semitism. This is the sort of propaganda Will Buckley [Sr] was afraid would be disseminated in America if Jewish power continued to expand … Would Bill [Buckley, Jr] allow it into his pages if he wasn’t afraid to oppose Jewish influence?
"People have a way of praising what they fear, as everyone in Russia who dated to speak at all used to celebrate Stalin in the most fulsome terms … [T]he praise itself was nothing but a barometer of inner dread … In the future, I’m sure that the now-fashionable toadying to Jews will appear equally embarrassing"
Todaying is perhaps the best word that can describe what Bill Buckley did when he went along with the «ex»-Trotskyite plan to purge Sobran, Buchanan, and their followings from political influence. As Sobran told Pravda:
"We're dealing with cunning fanatics who are masters of propaganda. And with the most embarassing toadies."
The men Buckley feared moved to oust Sobran in three stages -- one in the mid-1980s, one in the early 1990s, and one in 1993, when Sobran was dismissed. As Buckley put it in 1990:
"Early in 1986 I scheduled a private dinner with [Sobran] at which I told him that I thought he should know that in his syndicated column he was gradually giving his readers the impression that he was obsessed on Israel."
Sobran saw the meeting differently, writing in the Wanderer that:
"Bill in effect warned me that Jewish power would try to wreck my career if I didn’t shut up."
And later in his syndicated column that:
"[T]he friendship was strained in 1986 … [H]e’d taken me to dinner to warn me of the dangers of being ‘perceived’ as they say, as an anti-Semite. … [W]hen I told Bill about some Irish Catholic fans of mine … he sneered ‘you don’t need those people.’"
The dinner meeting was followed by a series of rushed editorial sessions. As Buckley put it:
"I judged it to be crisis time. I called the senior staff of the National Review together. We met three times, twice with Joe."
Or, as Sobran puts it:
"In May the Zionist lobby went public in its smear against me, throwing the National Review into total panic. There was hysteria in Bill’s apartment the night he and the other senior editors discussed it."
What came from it was a public disavowal by Buckley of his own employee, in the magazine where Sobran was employed, without a prior warning to Sobran -- one of the worst forms of backstabbing and betrayal. Buckley wrote on July 4, 1986:
"The structure of prevailing taboos respecting Israel and the Jews is welcome."
Effectively endorsing Jewish censorship of his own paper.
Sobran stayed on though -- was not fired -- yet. But in 1990, he managed to raise a stir again, this time opposing the Gulf War that George the First fought for Israel, pointing out that the accusations against Iraq were nothing but a Zionist fraud. As Sobran wrote in his column "Why National Review Is Wrong":
"We’re at that phase where the clever fellows have five-step victory plans. It doesn’t occur to them to assume responsibility for dead and mutilated young men …We’ve reached a point where our putative allies pose a greater threat to us than our supposed enemies. Saddam Hussein is our new Hitler of the month, so designated ..."
Again the American Jewish lobby, which had been working hard for a declaration of war, went into a fervor. Buckley himself was terrified by the article -- Didn’t Ol’ Joe know there was a war on? As Buckley later admitted:
"[I]n September 1990, after reading two pieces by him which I judged indefensible, I resolved wearily and sadly to dismiss Joe from the board of senior editors of National Review. I wrote out a personal letter:
"I read … this morning … the piece you submitted to National Review (‘Why National Review Is Wrong’).
"I can only conclude you can’t stay on as senior editor of National Review "
The letter was never sent, and Sobran was never told of it until more than a year later, when the December 30, 1991 issue of National Review hit the newsstand. Reflecting back in his "How I Was Fired By Bill Buckley" column, Sobran wrote:
"I felt a strange subterranean anger from Bill dating from about that time. … I was saying things … he didn’t have the courage to say. … He said he would fire me unless I retracted a column on the Gulf War he took as implying that he was in effect working for Israel. … I told him to learn the difference between an employee and a serf."
But the tension between Bill and Joe wouldn’t ebb. It just grew worse. A Sobran writes in that same column:
"In early 1990, as I recall, Bill told me he was writing an ‘essay on anti-Semitism’ and asked for my views on the subject. … He neglected to tell me I was one of his targets, and he wanted my views for the purpose of quoting them against me."
Bill was obsessed and breaking. As he later wrote in a rather disturbing use of the third person:
"Podhoretz, et al, are terminally displeased with Sobran, but only disappointed with Buckley."
Buckley didn’t want Podhoretz to become "terminally displeased" with him as well. After all, they could cut off his television appearances and his invitations to cocktail parties -- and we know that there are few men who wouldn't sacrifice their courage and their manhood for the continued chance to be on the A-list at Jewish-conservative cocktail parties.
In fear of the vanguardist neo-conservatives, Buckley would, in Sobran’s words:
"privately promise Norman that I would not be allowed to write editorials about the Middle East."
He would also publish his infamous issue of National Review, "In Search Of Anti-Semitism" (Chapter I), which would draw more mail than National Review had seen in a long time -- a whole 200 letters. As Sobran told Pravda:
"The 200 letters National Review received ... were overwhelmingly in my favor -- 7 to 1, by my rough count. They broke straight on Jew/Gentile lines. One of the biggest reader reactions the mag ever got, and not one of them were published! Amazing! What a hush-up."
Buckley's rambling 43 page essay that prompted this mail is hard to quote because it doesn’t say much of anything. As Sobran told Pravda:
"Bill Buckley never called me anti-Semitic, in fact he denied that I was anti-Semitic, but he made a serpentine charge that I somehow deserved to be falsely accused of anti-Semitism!"
And that sums it up. The essay is available in .pdf form in the National Review 's hard to find "archives" section on their website if any readers would like to follow up (try to search their website, and then when the search results screen comes up, you will be able to access the archives. Pay the $1.50 and type "anti-semitism" into the search engine, searching a time period that includes December 30, 1990).
Most notable about it was Bill Buckley’s attack on his own father, denouncing his parent as an "anti-Semite" as well. As Sobran would comment:
"I think it tells you something about Bill’s real attitude towards Jews that he thinks the way to propitiate them is by offering up a member of your own family -- Isaac sacrificing Abraham, so to speak. … Bill’s own attitude [towards Jews] reminds me of the way Stalin was regarded: public fawning, private dread."
In another essay, "Pervasive Fear," Sobran would write:
"According to an old and now estranged friend of Bill [Sr] named Revilo Oliver, the elder William Buckley was ‘well known in certain circles for his discreet subvention of effectively anti-Jewish periodicals and his drastic opinions about the alien’s perversion of our national life. … Others have described Bill [Jr.] as … ‘terrified of his father’s anti-Semitism.’"
Oliver is himself an interesting character, one who has pointed out that what happened to Joe Sobran and Pat Buchanan is similar to what happened to Lyndon LaRouche a few years earlier, stating in his essay "The Mystery of LaRouche" that:
"LaRouche knew in 1977 what the [Israelis] were doing in their secret underground plant for manufacturing atomic and nuclear bombs. … When the CIA could no longer ignore the information and photographs provided by the Jewish defector (who was quickly kidnapped by the Mossad …), it protested that it never had the least suspicion of what the [Jews] were doing in Israel. … When the FBI and Virginia authorities raided LaRouche’s headquarters in October 1986 … the FBI came into possession of .. positive proof of the treason that is normal in the Jews’ hirelings."
Good thing for Joe he didn’t discover the secret Israeli nuclear weapons program. He only questioned if endorsing Israeli aggression in general was good for the United States.
In 1993, after going public with his criticisms of Buckley and the fawning editorial attitude of the National Review 's staff, Joe Sobran was dismissed from his position and, in his words:
"I found a great many markets quietly closed to me. … I have found new markets for my services; but believe me [the Israeli Lobby] will do their best to ruin you if you suggest that Israel is anything but the best friend this country ever had."
Where Are They Now?
Having gone into much detail before about the National Review and the history of its current employees (see "White Zion" http://english.pravda.ru/main/2001/11/23/21825.htmland "Police State Zionism And Its Discontents" (http://english.pravda.ru/main/2002/01/25/26004.html) There is no need to review that material again. As Gregory Pavlik, writing for the Rothbard-Rockwell report, put it in his essay "Neo-Conservatism is a CIA Front» (http://www.lewrockwell.com/orig/pavlik2.html):
"[T]he National Review was conceived as a way to put the isolationist[s] our of business. … It was the [National Review] that finally broke the back of the populist and isolationist right, the mass-based movement with its roots in the America First anti-war movement.
"Neo-cons … now insist on massive extensions of the warfare state. [They] demand … war to topple the head of … foreign government[s] unfriendly to Israel, while denouncing right-wing isolationism [and] libertarianism."
This can be seen in what has happened with the men who led the charge against Joe Sobran.
Norman Podhoretz, of course, is still the war-mongering imperialist swine he always was.
David Frum is now writing the speeches that George the Second is using to take us into war.
Alan Dershowitz is now, in the words of CBS, "tell[ing] Correspondent Mike Wallace that torture is inevitable."
Richard Cohen is demanding that Oracle CEO Larry Ellis' plan for a national ID card be implemented
And the whole crew of corrupt Israelites is still spewing into our society the garbage they were spewing a decade prior, only today there is even less criticism of them than the little that could still be heard in 1990. Joe Sobran advised us back then to:
"[T]ake a quick inventory of the commentators who constantly defend Israel: Podhoretz, Rosenthal, Dershowitz, Martin Peretz, George Will, Mortimer Zuckerman, Morton Kondracke, Jeane Kirkpatrick, Kenneth Adelman, Amos Perlmutter, Eric Breindal, Cal Thomas, Max Lerner, Ben Wattenberg, Charles Krauthammer, William Safire, and Fred Barnes."
Not only are those names still with us, but they are in power, having snuck in under the curtain of the Bush administration. An Israeli spy like Richard Perle, who in the 1970s was dismissed from government service for passing top secret data on to the Israeli embassy, now sits on the Defense Policy Review Board -- and was considered as a candidate for the post of Secretary of Defense! America is no longer concerned about Israeli infiltration of the government -- instead, the American government has become a colonial outpost of the Zionist terror-state!
"[O]ne cannot be against Israel or Zionism ... without being anti-Semitic. Israel is the state of the Jews. Zionism is the belief that Jews should have a state. To defame Israel is to defame the Jews. To wish it never existed, or would cease to exist, is to wish to destroy the Jews."
So writes Hillel Halkin in the February 6th edition of the Wall Street Journal. But his point begs a question: Given that Israel is evil, an anti-Zionism is the only position a moral person can take, if it is right to defame Israel, can it still be wrong to defame Jews? At the very least, it is a lot easier to defame both of them together, than to have to hem and haw and clarify every criticism one makes. And to what group of people is the threat of being "anti-Semitic" so terrible, except to Jews? Jews see it as the ultimate insult, because it is a negation of who they are -- and Jews are always shocked to discover that few people outside their community judge others by or care how those others feel about Jews. A writer like Joe Sobran, used to being published in Jewish-owned or dominated media can have his career destroyed, but beyond those made specially vulnerable by their choice of position, the organized Jewish-Israeli community has little power.
Vanguardism, and the subversion of mass movements, has been a problem that isolated groups on the left have been dealing with for decades. But the Republican Party, desperate to cast itself as a "big tent," welcomed the vanguardists in with open arms and gave them senior positions in the belief that the «conservatism» the Trotskyists spewed had some basis in something other than their cynical desire to take power. The Republicans were wrong, and the same men that welcomed the Zionists in with open arms have now been enslaved by their guests just as the Palestinians have been enslaved in Israel.
Non-Jewish Republicans are kept in line through an apartheid system that relegates to them certain roles -- certain communities -- that the neo-conservatives constantly reserve the right to "settle" in. Republicans who openly defy the Israeli order are forcefully expelled, and their jobs are bulldozed as if they were Palestinian homes. Refugee camps such as the Reform and Constitution Parties have formed on the fringes, providing fertile ground for the recruiting of discontents by even more radical groups. The Jewish bourgeoisie urges the violent suppression of those who would oppose them, demanding laws to torture, to execute without trial, and to destroy by any means possible the most radical of those who dare to rebel against their rule.
We are seeing Israel-America enacting the same kind of racist government within our borders, this time by deception, not invasion, as it established in Palestine in 1948. We were tricked into letting these people in, and now they are pushing us out, and with us goes all of the principles that we founded the country on, and everything that we once thought America stands for. They take away our First Amendment with hate speech laws, take away the Second Amendment because it is part of "anti-government militias," take away the Fourth and Fifth Amendments in the "war on terrorism," take away the Eighth Amendment because "anything, even torture, is justified in dealing with ‘terrorists,’" and the Ninth and Tenth Amendments have been a dead letter for decades.
If these people are not stopped and expelled from office, there will be nothing left for the rest of us, our families and our children, to have and enjoy a decade or two hence. We will have ID badges limiting our access to their communities, we will be stopped at checkpoints and denied medical care, and we will be left with nothing but rocks to throw in their streets and explosive belts to detonate in their markets after they have taken away every other means of resistance from us.
In the story of Joe Sobran and his purge from National Review we see a key element in the final stages of the consolidation of the Zionist stranglehold on the American media, as he, one of the last dissenters, and a former true believer, was forced out -- not because he had become a great threat, though his martyrdom has given him an air of greatness -- but because he dared to dissent at all.
What is troubling is that Western analysts do not understand why Trump came to power, and why Putin can still retains it
Acting Russian President Vladimir Putin is winning the presidential election in the country in a landslide victory
Acting Russian President Vladimir Putin is winning the presidential election in the country in a landslide victory