Readings in the Jewish Zionist control of the United States: Interviews with Francis Boyle, James Petras, and Kim Petersen: Part 2

Readings in the Jewish Zionist control of the United States: Interviews with Francis Boyle, James Petras, and Kim Petersen. Part 2

From observing the Zionist expressions of power, one stands out above the rest: Dominance. Because it is an umbrella covering various forms of power and influence, dominance is versatile. In the politics of power, dominance is such a force that it can generate authority, adulation, and appeal for association. This phenomenon could happen anywhere and in any society regardless of the personal beliefs of those who acknowledge the Dominance Factor and work within its rules. However, our focus here is Authority. Among all the practical mechanism of Authority, control is the most looked-after commodity because those who possess and employ it can rule in any capacity. Control, therefor is an essential mechanism to expand domination—it leads to compliance regardless of the political system.

In the context of the Zionist establishment, Authority, due to an already achieved dominance, has a powerful but subtle method to make the System adapt to its needs. It changes the system from inside without changing how it functions, how it appears, or how it is perceived.

This is an advantage. A system thusly changed would keep its normal appearance of administrative continuity. Such an appearance is vital for the sake of perception. That is, even though the Zionist infiltration has changed the ideological composition of the system by making of Zionism a formidable political force, such change would still be regarded by many Americans as a normal and "free" political process. Explanation: Despite achieving significant power inside the U.S. duopoly system, Jewish Zionists have been striving, since Bill Clinton, to maintain discretion while exercising control from within.

To recap, although sought vehemently by the Jewish Zionist establishment, Authority is relegated to the hidden order of things. To be exact, the establishment would do anything to minimize being perceived as the one in control. With that, the System can feel its effects, sees its manifestations, but would not object to its display of power. You can notice this model clearly, when politicians from all isles of the imperialist order line up (as if driven by a mysterious force) for AIPAC yearly conference in sign of deference to its power and asserted capability to influence events inside the System.

In the end, because each form within the concept of Authority—influence, power, and control—has its own set of external expressions, they often deliver different effects according to where and how they were applied. In other words, such expressions are the adaptable public language with which Authority communicates and asserts its presence. The ultimate purpose of Authority, however, is not symbolic. Those who exercise it expect good results from its application.

Furthermore, without dominance, there would be no Authority to represent it. Not only that, but in situations whereby governments express themselves through Authority, an issue develops. That is, Authority may not become a tool of governance unless strategy, planning, and organizational structures support it from all sides. At any rate, for Dominance to continue, it would need effective self-defense mechanisms in case it meets resistance or attempts to downsize or eliminate it. Mechanisms such as these are a plenty in the Jewish Zionist repertoire. Examples include election contributions, questionnaires for new candidates, and database on politicians.

It is possible to win the argument that Dominance is the precursor to Control through Authority. But unlike Control that has precise attributes, Dominance depends on perception to be effective. Meaning, although it can replace power under some conditions, dominance can lose specificity when there are no recipients. But it can prosper and expand when elementary requirements are present. For example, did the theological beliefs of U.S. presidents play a role in the rise of the Zionist dominance? Are there other explanations?

First, the diction, "plays a role" is inconclusive. It implies that other factors are co-players thus leaving us to speculate as to which player is more important. Second, although pro-Zionist statements made by U.S. presidents during the past one hundred years or so are more than we could ever count, the fact remains, more investigation is needed to correlate each item of any statement to its meaning and political finality. For instance, in the case of early presidents of the 20th century, could it be that religious feelings dogmatically connecting Christianity to Judaism were lurking behind their political thinking? This leads to the question whether the relationship between Jewish Zionists and U.S. ruling establishment is bible-based.

This is possible. It happens when officials and elected officers of the U.S. government are already prone to Zionist propaganda. Still, ample evidence suggests that said relation is driven by geopolitical calculations. I can even argue that U.S. wars against the Arab nations are more related to the U.S. global agenda than to Israel and Zionism. This means, Israel uses the United States, and the United State uses Israel—each for its own cause.

There is another side to theological beliefs when applied to politics—the hypocrisy of the American System. Think of the First Amendment. It requires separation of state and church. That however never stopped American presidents and lawmakers to take an exception when it comes to Israel or Zionism. Regarding Israel, they cite biblical tales to justify support. As for Zionism, they connect certain aspects of the political ideology of European Zionism to Christianity, "biblical prophesies", and the "return of Jews to their ancient land". The outcome is a mixture between political decisions, Christian texts, and the theological books of the ancient Hebrews. Only here there are no cultural, historical, or ethnical facts tying Jews from Europe, Africa, and some Asian regions to those Hebrews.

Were there specific factors that pushed the United States to yield to the political power of American Jewish Zionists?

Before addressing the question, we should never think of the United States as an entity and Jewish Zionists as another. Jewish Zionists are a component of the American people and society. The problem is this component has seized the reins of the American System to serve the interests of a foreign state that happens to be the matrix of Zionism in the Middle East. Accordingly, we can answer the question by anchoring it first to the geopolitical context of the Arab nations, their rejection of the Zionist state, the Palestinian Question, and Israel.

To close, by linking the specific intent of Jewish Zionists vis-à-vis the Arab states and Israel, the role of the United States becomes clearer. Because public records can verify that Jewish Zionists are the active decision-makers of U.S. wars in the Arab world, the assertion that they used the United States as a proxy agent in the destruction of any state perceived as posing a threat to Israel is convincing. Obviously, in order to enable Israel becoming a regional superpower, they have to preserve their dominance over the American state and its institutions first.

Within this context, isolating the factors that turned the United States into an ancillary agency of AIPAC and Israel should be easy to do. It is true that biblical beliefs of U.S. politicians had played an important role in shaping their attitudes toward Zionism, Israel, and the Arabs. But it is also true, as stated early, there can be no doubt that Arab oil and geostrategic assets have been driving the U.S. policy of wars in the Arab world. By methodically learning how U.S. imperialists think and what they want, Jewish Zionists (nowadays referred to with the oxymoron: neoconservatives) presented themselves as the strongest advocates for an expanded U.S. empire.

Ronald Reagan provided a clear insight on the matter. In his remarks to the National Conference of Christian and Jews, March 23, 1982, he said the following:

"Only by full appreciation of the critical role the State of Israel plays in our strategic calculus can we build the foundation for thwarting Moscow's designs on territories and resources vital to our security and our national well-being ..."

First, Reagan's fixation with the Soviet Union is a replica of Nixon's. Second, Reagan did not specify what role Israel was playing in the U.S. "strategic calculus". Still, his intention is evident: Israel is to act as a U.S. proxy against all revolutionary movements anywhere in the world—including the Arab nations—under the pretext of fighting Communism. Third, Reagan explained the intent of U.S. imperialism objectively. He essentially said that it is fine for him to promote Israeli terrorism so that the United States could control "territories with resources" instead of its rival, the Soviet Union.

In the same speech, Reagan could not hide his low opinion of the Arab nations. He said, "Today, no one questions that Israel is a land of stability and democracy in a region of tyranny and unrest." [Emphasis added].

The fact that Israel has a parliamentary system does not constitute a valid reason to accept its imperialist-conferred status as a legitimate state or erase its crimes against the Palestinians, Lebanese, and other Arabs. Second, Reagan's futile judgement about a "region of tyranny and unrest" is a tiring American cliché. In the U.S. political lexicon though, it is a pretext for intervention at an opportune moment as it happened in Iraq, Syria, and in Libya. Incidentally, Reagan said, "No one questions that Israel is a land of stability, etc." What was he thinking when he said, "NO ONE"?

Beyond that, Reagan's statement of intent had two implications. First, he dismissed the role of the United States and Israel had been playing in the region to provoke "unrest". Second, there is no denying that Arab rulers are tyrants. But this should never be an issue from the viewpoint of making war against them.

To our knowledge, if Arab leaders are tyrants in their fiefdoms, the United States, based on its unaccountability factor, is the world's absolutist tyrant. Second, the Palestinians and all other Arabs would not give a damn if Israel were a "democracy" or not. For the Arab peoples, and despite diplomatic recognition of Israel by some, Israel was and still is an illegal and illegitimate entity that the colonialist West installed amidst the Arabs by violence using its laws, its mandates, and its "United Nations".

DOMINANCE AS A MULTI-FACTOR DENOMINATION
Dominance is not the result of just one factor. In its basic form, dominance is the confluence of multiple factors working together. With that, the Jewish Zionist dominance in the United States has reached such an advanced totalitarian stage that most Americans are scared to challenge it, or question the role of Israel in American political life.

Furthermore, if Jewish Zionism were an American movement, we may evaluate it under this light and analyze it accordingly. Many Zionists have been trying to make of Zionism an American movement because they are Americans. Does Zionism have what it takes to be an American movement?

The answer is a resounding no. Zionism cannot be an American movement like the Civil Rights Movement or the Anti-War Movement to end the Vietnam War for one big reason. By it is own definition, Zionism is an ideological creed that once had the sole objective to install a Zionist‑defined state in Palestine. Although many American presidents supported such a state, that does not mean that Zionism should be a political religion for the U.S. ruling circles, or as another ideology of the American "idea".

In support of the preceding argument, I present the following premises. The idea of a "Jewish state" was a manifesto created by European Jewish Zionists to conquer Palestine. The implication is self-evident. That idea was never an American project. By force of this fact, we cannot qualify that Zionist idea as an American ideology, manifesto, or objective.

To continue, Zionism serves no purpose in the U.S. cultural, political, or social lives. Moreover, after the installation of Israel, Jewish Zionists should have shelved that ideology because it achieved its purpose. That did not happen because Israel needs Zionism to 1) pursue its plans for a larger Israel, and 2) achieve commanding positions inside the West in order to protect both: The settler state, its expansionist projects, and their prominence in their political systems.

AMERICAN PRESIDENTS AND ZIONISM
To outline the beginning of the Zionist power in terms of U.S. presidents, my starting point is Theodor Roosevelt followed (in the next part) by Woodrow Wilson and the incoming Donald Trump.

Theodore Roosevelt
Roosevelt is known for his racism and lust for mass murder of colonized peoples. His belief in eugenics—even before this became a philosophical doctrine—and his admiration for colonial brutality in the U. S. and the Philippines should never be considered casual opinions—they were the opinions of the president of the United States. Meaning, they have impact and consequences. Now, the bastard who coined the fascist slogan, "The only good Indians are the dead Indians" had become a judge on the proposed Zionist colonization of Palestine. (Today, in Zionist-occupied Palestine, Israeli schools teach their students Roosevelt's slogan modified as follows, "A dead Arab Is a good Arab".)

Referring to certain things that Roosevelt said privately, Douglas Little, Professor of History at Clark University, Worchester, Massachusetts, writes:

Roosevelt confessed privately in 1907 that it is impossible to expect moral, intellectual, and material well-being where Mohammedanism is supreme. The Egyptians, for example, were a people of Moslem fellahin who have never in all time exercised any self-government whatever. Britain s Lord Cromer, Roosevelt added, is one of the greatest modern colonial administrators, and he has handled Egypt just according to Egypt's needs, military occupation, foreign tutelage, and Christian patience. [1] [Emphasis added] [Note: In Arabic, the word "fellahin" is the plural form for peasant]

Comment
The statement, "it is impossible to expect moral, intellectual, and material well-being where Mohammedanism is supreme," is no big deal coming from a man with a sclerotic racist mentality. However, it is of a great importance to explore how the ideas of Theodor Roosevelt would have paved the way for the ongoing Zionist control of the United States. Under this light, the invented enmity to the Arabs— all uncritically lumped as Muslims—works on two fronts.

On the U.S. imperialist front, Islam was not under direct attack up to the Israeli invasion of Lebanon—approved by Ronald Reagan. After the United States took sides in the Lebanese civil war on the side of the pro-Israeli Kataeb (Phalangist) militia by shelling Druse villages and Syrian forces stationed in Lebanon, something happened. The Lebanese retaliated by attacking the U.S. marines overseeing the evacuation of the PLO. With that, the American tune changed. Gradually, from accusing Iran and Hezbollah for the attack, Islam—in its Shiite component—became the accused.

Despite that, the crawling U.S. enmity toward the Arab states was still more political than religious. It was still so even after the U.S. war against Iraq for Kuwait in 1991. Although the essential anti-Arab stance remained muted after that war, a political-ideological ploy—using Islam as culprit—was under development to keep the military pressure on those Arab states not yet under U.S. hegemony.

In that period, the United States never missed an occasion to thank the Wahhabi "Muslim" clerics for their fatwas blessing the war on Iraq. However, two events forced the U.S. to change refrain and come clean on its enmity to the Arabs, and successively to Islam. The first was after the Khobar attack (attributed to Iran and Saudi "Hezbollah") against the U.S. forces stationed in Saudi Arabia; the second was after the United States broke relations with its erstwhile ally Osama Bin Laden who demanded that the United States withdraw its forces from Saudi Arabia or expect to be attacked.

Afterwards, a new situation emerged. As the United States refused his demands, it began portraying any objection to its military presence on Arab lands as a sign of "Islamic fundamentalism"—, which they themselves re-invented in Afghanistan as "jihad" to fight the Soviets.

To conclude, the ruse of "Islamic fundamentalism" (and its other forms: "Islamic terrorism", "radical Islam", etc.) is a tool to hide the wider picture of the imperialist intent. Israel has been using it, especially since its six-day war of 1967, to suppress the Palestinian rejection of the settler state and the occupation of the West bank and Gaza. From that period on, and with the advent of Henry Kissinger, the politics of U.S. imperialism began gradually mixing with the politics of Israel and Zionism.

On the Israeli front, Islam and Muslims have been always on the backburner of Zionist planning. Here, however, the Israeli strategy complements the American ploy. Israel demonizes the Arab nations by demonizing first their predominate religion. But Israel does not do that directly. Instead, it unleashes its myriad mouthpieces and Zionist organizations in the United States.

For example, after the staged bombing of the World Trade Center in 1993 (attributed, as usual, to "Muslim radicals"), a U.S. System already dominated by Zionists began adopting the Israeli strategy for demonizing Islam as well. But Islam in its widest theological interpretation is almost a mirror image of Judaism. In truth, there is even more affinity between Judaism and Islam than between Christianity and Judaism. Both Judaism and Islam deny the deity of Christ and the Trinity dogma. As for the claim that the Quran is violent, let those who believe in this indoctrination read the Bible and tell us it is peaceful. Interestingly, while the Quran announces horrible punishments by the creator for non-believers and heathens, the bible calls for the extermination of all "adversaries of the ancient Hebrews including the total destruction of their herds, dogs, and grain storages.

Mastodontic amounts of books, articles, essays, and reports have been written on "Islamic terrorism" after the suspicious event of 9/11. . . . And of course, Islam and Muslims had been indicted collectively. Which raises the question: is it not strange that no voices were heard against Catholicism when Timothy McVeigh bombed the Federal Building in Oklahoma? And when Japan attacked Pearl Harbor, is it not equally strange that neither Shinto nor Buddhism were indicted? In that occasion, the racist regime of Franklin D. Roosevelt reacted to the attack by attacking American citizens of Japanese origin—he confined over 100,000 of them to concentration camps. In both cases, religious beliefs were no the issue.

Now, take the invasion of Iraq as compared to the attack of 9/11. Because the attack against the United Stated on September 11, 2001 was a monstrous crime against humanity, the deliberate invasion of Iraq powered by lies, deceptions, and invented assumptions is not only monstrous, but a devastatingly immoral crime against humanity—especially knowing that Iraq was in no way connected to the attack on the United States. Let us compare the two.

The 9/11 attack left over 3000 people dead and an important trade district destroyed. In that even, the United States did not label the alleged perpetrators as a squad of criminals with a political agenda. Instead, as if following a script, it criminalized their religion. As for the U.S. invasion of Iraq that left (by some account) over two million Iraqis dead, millions more displaced, and major cities destroyed, no Iraqi official, citizen, or the state media have ever accused the multiple religious beliefs of the United States for that invasion. The blame that Iraq and countless other countries laid on the United States and Britain took aim at their imperialistic motives and on Israel conspiring with them openly through Jewish Zionists in the Bush Administration.

A question: Why is the frenzied focus on Islam?

Next, I will answer this question, and then move to discuss Woodrow Wilson and Donald Trump. In addition, I shall also discuss how Jewish Zionists manipulate U.S. domestic policy in order to have the upper hand in the decision making of foreign policy and wars.

Find Part 1 here.

NEXT
Part 3
Part 4
Part 5
Part 6
Part 7: Interview with Francis Boyle
Part 8: Interview with James Petras
Part 9: Interview with Kim Petersen

NOTES

1. Douglas Little, American Orientalism: The United States and the Middle East since 1945, University of North Carolina Press, 2008, p. 15