Jesus um palestino? Ou Palestina como Jesus? Como o fogo palestino pode curar e salvar o mundo
Uma polêmica foi notícia nos Estados Unidos alguns anos atrás. Era sobre se Jesus era palestino ou não, e os argumentos ficaram bastante divertidos. Judeus, que odeiam Jesus (e desejam que Ele nunca tivesse existido) e desprezam o Cristianismo acima de todas as religiões, de repente ficaram muito possessivos com Ele. Ele era um judeu Mizrai, não um judeu palestino, eles insistiam. Os judeus não podem conceber nada pior do que a sua própria espécie convertendo-se ao cristianismo – para muitos judeus, é pior do que a morte, mais insondável do que o Holocausto. Quando os judeus se tornam seculares ou adotam o budismo, eles ainda são considerados membros da tribo. Mas os judeus que se convertem ao cristianismo estão além dos limites. Então, por que não deixar que os palestinos, um povo que os judeus odeiam quase tanto quanto Jesus, tenham o Sr. Cristo para si? Mas isso não pode ser permitido. Uma razão é que, apesar de seu ódio sem limites por Jesus, Ele é uma das maiores figuras da história e da teologia, e há um orgulho espinhoso em saber que todos aqueles goyim idiotas reverenciam como Deus algum judeu hippie rejeitado pelos companheiros de tribo como um perdedor. Como cristãos recém-criados, os goyim perseguiram os judeus como assassinos de Cristo, mas ainda assim estavam sob o feitiço mágico de um judeu.
A outra razão, provavelmente mais importante, é que Jesus ainda é muito importante para os brancos ao redor do mundo; portanto, se Jesus for associado à Identidade Palestina, as simpatias brancas e/ou cristãs podem passar dos judeus (como os escolhidos e/ou do holocristo) para os palestinos. A brancura deve ser enfatizada nesta equação porque nem todos os cristãos são loucos por judeus ou por Israel. Os cristãos árabes não concordam com a noção de que os judeus são os Escolhidos com direito especial à Terra Santa. (Dado que os judeus transformaram a Terra Santa em Sodoma e Gomorra com enormes desfiles globo-homo, um cristão que apóia Israel deve ser rotulado de cristão-sodomista do que cristão sionista. Mesmo pessoas não religiosas devem se ofender com o que os sionistas fizeram para a terra tão rica em significado histórico e espiritual; é como transformar um templo sagrado em uma casa de banho ‘gay’. Afinal, até um infiel é ofendido por carne de porco jogada em uma mesquita e até mesmo um não-cristão (pelo menos se não judeu) é ofendido por palhaçadas do tipo Antifa dentro de uma Igreja Ortodoxa Russa.
De certa forma, a coisa do globo-homo em Israel é uma jogada inteligente. Os judeus sabem que os cristãos evangélicos são burros e podem facilmente ser levados a acreditar que Deus abençoa aqueles que abençoam Israel. Chrummies, ou manequins cristãos, são muito idiotas para ligar os pontos e traçar seu declínio até a ascendência judaica. Os judeus se sentem seguros de que os chrummies apoiarão cegamente Israel, não importa o quê. O verdadeiro problema é com os chamados brancos ‘liberais’ e ‘progressistas’ seculares. Eles são pós-cristãos e não podem ser influenciados por uma simples conversa sobre Deus. Sua presunção progressiva os faz ansiar por novos significados de narrativas e agendas; eles querem se sentir à frente da curva, ou ‘mais evoluídos’ do que os outros, ou a tradição da moda. Ultimamente, o Globo-Homo se tornou uma grande coisa para eles, até mesmo de importância ‘espiritual’, ou seja, eles são tão cheios de amor, tolerância e inclusão enquanto os ‘homofóbicos’, muitas vezes alimentados por fanatismo religioso, são cegos para as maravilhas do ‘arco-íris’ de dongs entrando em batoques ou dongs se transformando em poons. Os judeus sabem que o ângulo religioso dos velhos tempos é difícil de vender para esses manequins brancos ou fanfarrões. Existe até o perigo de progressistas brancos assumirem a bandeira do BDS porque o GOP se tornou sinônimo de sionismo linha-dura e ódio contra os palestinos.
Mas, tendo abraçado o culto globo-homo como sua neo-religião, os progs brancos reverenciam Israel como o homo-lugar-de-estar, não muito diferente do tom de Las Vegas-como-o-lugar-de-Natal em Albert Brooks PERDIDO NA AMÉRICA. Funcionou como mágica porque nada, com a possível exceção da adoração de George Floyd, é mais sagrado para os libby-dibs do que o globo-homo; portanto, eles estão dispostos a fechar os olhos para a tirania sionista sobre os palestinos por causa do ‘orgulho gay’ > justiça palestina.
Assim, os judeus obtiveram o apoio de ambos os amigos evangélicos que idolatram os judeus como pessoas piedosas Escolhidas e fanfarrões libby-dib que torcem por Israel como a principal disco-meca ‘gay’ do mundo. O uso da questão globo-homo como cobertura moral é chamado de ‘pink-washing’, e ilustra a doença de nossos tempos onde algo é considerado sagrado por causa de sua associação com sodomia e mutilação genital de travesti. Infelizmente, até mesmo muitos palestinos aderiram a esse movimento porque também foram colonizados por ‘acordar’ concebido pelos judeus ou entendem a natureza idólatra da moralidade ocidental pela qual o valor deriva da associação do que do mérito inerente, ou seja, assim como os religiosos afirmam ter Deus em seu poder. lado deles, a moralidade moderna é sobre qual lado tem a bênção de grupos sacralizados,
A ‘moralidade’ americana tanto para ‘liberais’ quanto para ‘conservadores’ é menos sobre quem está certo ou errado no conflito entre judeus e palestinos do que sobre qual partido político tem a bênção dos santos judeus. Nem os republicanos nem os democratas se importam se judeus e Israel estão fazendo certo ou errado porque sua mentalidade idólatra assume que os judeus estão sempre certos e nobres por causa do mito do Povo Escolhido e/ou da Narrativa do Holocausto.
Portanto, nunca se trata de nenhum dos partidos políticos julgando o comportamento político judaico, mas de ser julgado favoravelmente pelo poder judaico como o árbitro supremo e todo-poderoso do certo e do errado na América, no mundo e em todo o cosmos. Como os palestinos não têm chance de obter a benção judaica, eles chegam às comunidades homo e negras para impressionar os progs brancos, que também cultuam homos e negros ao lado dos judeus, mas essa é uma estratégia condenada porque homos, além de poucos dissidentes, são totalmente aliados com os judeus no empreendimento globalista. Quanto aos negros que se auto-engrandecem, a maioria vai com o dinheiro que flui da fonte judaica.)
Este artigo – https://www.jpost.com/opinion/article-689639 – fala da inveja palestina por todas as coisas judaicas, mas a mesma acusação poderia ser feita a todos os cristãos ou muçulmanos goy. O que são a maioria dos cristãos além dos goyim que adotaram o Deus judeu como seu? E o que é o Islã senão uma apropriação árabe de narrativas judaicas e mitos cristãos? Concedido, indo mais para trás, pode-se argumentar que os judeus “roubaram com inveja” as idéias e mitos de tribos pagãs vizinhas na criação de sua própria religião.
E por falar em inveja, os judeus também são os principais candidatos. É verdade que os judeus têm sido objeto de inveja dos goys, não apenas por sua perspicácia para ganhar dinheiro, realizações intelectuais e poder espiritual, mas a história judaica está repleta de incontáveis exemplos de olhares invejosos para goyim e cobiçar o que é deles. De fato, por que mais os judeus procurariam com inveja obter controle sobre as nações goy em vez de apenas deixá-los no espírito de viver e deixar viver?
Às vezes, a inveja pode ser totalmente neurótica, por exemplo, judeus valorizando os arianos como especialmente atraentes, o padrão-ouro de beleza, mas também os classificando como ‘shikses’ cuja beleza-como-falso-deus deve ser destruída pela mistura de raças. Os judeus há muito valorizam o potencial de lucro dos negros como cantores e atletas – entre as principais queixas de Louis Farrakhan -, mas em particular se referem aos negros como ‘schvartzes’ e até ‘ni**ers’. Os judeus de hoje invejam amargamente a situação dos palestinos porque sua própria reivindicação de vitimização está caindo (e é por isso que devemos ser lembrados constantemente do Santo Holocausto), enquanto a tragédia dos palestinos, especialmente em Gaza, está começando a se assemelhar às condições judaicas no Gueto de Varsóvia. .
Problemáticos são os múltiplos significados de ‘palestino’. Tem significado étnico, mas também histórico e territorial. Um mexicano-americano é legalmente um cidadão americano, portanto um americano, mas pode optar por não se identificar como tal (um maldito gringo ou yanqui) e, em vez disso, declarar-se um mexicano orgulhoso. A Anistia transformaria muitos ilegais em ‘americanos’, mas os patriotas rejeitariam que eles fossem. Quando os judeus europeus começaram sua migração para a Palestina no final do século 19, eles se identificaram como ‘palestinos’ (mesmo que falsamente para acalmar os medos da população nativa), e os jornais judeus da época tinham nomes como ‘The Palestinian Times’. Essa definição obscura de ‘Palestina’ permite todo tipo de interpretação. Se alguém que vive ou viveu no território palestino conta como ‘palestino’, então todos os judeus atuais que vivem lá contariam como ‘palestinos’. E Jesus e seus discípulos também podiam ser contados entre os ‘palestinos’. Mas então, também os romanos, otomanos e os britânicos como ocupantes da Palestina. Claro, os atuais palestinos que vivem em Israel contam como ‘árabes israelenses’, o que complica ainda mais as coisas.
Por esta razão, a definição mais significativa de ‘palestino’ é étnica, não geográfica. Dizer que judeus que viviam na Palestina eram ‘palestinos’ seria tão absurdo quanto dizer que filisteus que viviam na Judéia (outro nome para aproximadamente o mesmo território) eram ‘judeus’. Considere os problemas do geografismo na UE, onde qualquer um que consiga entrar pode contar como ‘europeu’, efetivamente rebaixando as raízes raciais do europeísmo que remontam a dezenas de milhares de anos. Pelas regras do globalismo e da Grande Reinicialização, um não-branco pisando em solo europeu tem a mesma reivindicação de europeísmo que um europeu branco com raízes ancestrais que remontam talvez a 40.000 anos. Pior, a mídia controlada por judeus na Europa agora coloniza até mesmo o passado europeu apresentando não-brancos, especialmente negros, em papéis históricos brancos. Tal é a loucura do globalismo, pelo menos para os goyim,
De qualquer forma, os palestinos entenderam o contrário. Em vez de postular que Jesus era um palestino, seria melhor propor a Palestina como o novo Jesus. Pode um povo inteiro ser assim sacralizado? Com certeza aconteceu para os judeus como holocristos crucificados pela Europa cristã ‘anti-semita’. O culto da Shoah ressuscitou o judaísmo como o tema mais sagrado no Ocidente, suplantando o cristianismo que, se alguma coisa, foi deslegitimado como colaborador covarde ou fraco ineficaz contra o poder nazista.
Em parte, a Grande Substituição demográfica segue logicamente da grande substituição espiritual-moral em que a narrativa passou de “judeus mataram Cristo” para “cristãos mataram judeus”. (Se os cristãos não conseguiram converter a maioria dos judeus ao longo de quase 2.000 anos, os judeus facilmente converteram a maioria dos brancos à nova fé do Holocausto. De fato, mesmo a maioria dos cristãos obstinados hoje colocam judeus e Israel acima de Deus e Jesus. Seu republicano cristão médio favorecerá os sionistas que armam ISIS e espalhar o globo-homo sobre os cristãos árabes que mantiveram a chama viva por 1.500 anos contra todas as probabilidades em um mar do Islã.)
Even an IDF soldier bashing the skull of a Palestinian boy is deemed part of the divine Anne Frank tribe — whatever Jews do is justified within the framework of ‘Never Again’, despite Palestinians having had nothing to do with Jewish tragedies in the 20th century and Jewish Power coming to resemble the Nazis. ‘Never Again’ turned into ‘Again but against Goyim’.
When IDF soldiers shoot Palestinian women in Gaza, US government sees poor helpless Jews defending themselves against Arab Nazis. It’s as if every Jew has been issued an Anne Frank card of instant moral absolution. Likewise, all blacks have been sacralized on account of ‘muh slavery’. Even George Floyd the lowlife junkie has been canonized as the latest Negro Saint, perhaps ingesting fentanyl in heaven alongside Gentle Giant Michael Brown smoking pot-laced blunts he lifted from a convenience store. It’s as if all blacks, even worthless crazy thugs and looters, are black-christs before whom we must kneel to suck their toes.
Of course, blacks are especially valuable to Jews, and not only to guilt-bait whites. It’s also because, during the Cold War, Palestinians were allied with the ANC in South Africa whereas Israel was the closest ally of the Apartheid regime. For most of their political careers, the likes of Mandela and Desmond Tutu were bosom buddies with Yasser Arafat while condemning ‘racist’ Israel. Lest anyone open up that can of worms, Jews have gone the extra mile to bribe, flatter, and threaten blacks to stick with Jews. Whatever sympathy blacks may have for Palestinians, they are above all about ‘gots to have me'(not that white goyim are any better), which translates into most blacks taking 30 pieces of silver from Jews than doing what’s right. Cornel West may be wrong on lots of issues but deserves respect for refusing the silver and calling out on the House Negroes who failed to do likewise.
Of course, it all gets very complicated in the game of Tug-A-Gro(‘gro’ being Negro). In 2020, Jewish Power fanned BLM riots to shore up black support for the Democratic Party, but Palestinians also waved the BLM flag, tying their struggle with the black cause in the US. Jews and Palestinians found themselves on the same side(BLM-mania) but for very different reasons. Jews used BLM against whites, and Palestinians tried to use it against Zionism. But as Jews held the purse-strings, blacks did the bidding of Jews and, if anything, looted and burned down countless Arab-owned stores.
One thing for sure, no politician, institution, or city street promoted the message, “Palestinian Lives Matter”. Because of American History of racial discrimination against blacks and the persistent problems of black poverty and underachievement, there’s a tendency to associate black ‘struggle’ with anti-American and anti-Zionist struggles around the world, but it is based on a false narrative. Blacks haven’t been oppressed for quite some time in the US and, if anything, are lionized like no other group except for Jews and homos. Contrary to libby-dib moral outrage that 10,000 innocent blacks are gunned down every year by ‘racist’ white cops, truth is precious few unarmed blacks are killed thus and almost invariably for violently resisting arrest. If a Jihadi gains instant access to 77 virgins in heaven upon blowing himself up, even the lousiest black thug gains instant sainthood upon being killed by cops.
In fact, blacks are top criminals(or ‘crimperialists’), the #1 victimizers of other races and other blacks in the US. But, due to Jewish control of global media and their endless commemorations of Emmett Till(now with competition from Fentanyl Floyd), the World is still under the spell that WHITES or ‘white supremacists’ go around lynching innocent Negroes. (While it’s true that organized whites once ganged up against blacks, usually thugs or criminals, the very necessity of such group-behavior suggests at white fear and anxiety than white supremacy. Whites had to act as a team because, one-on-one, they were no match for tougher and more muscular blacks. It’s like the only chance wolves have against bears or cougars is as a pack or team because a single wolf is no match for bear or cougar. But, once white unity based on identity and loyalty became taboo in the US, whites could no longer organize against blacks, which meant the confrontations came down to white individual vs black individual, which usually advantaged the tougher blacks. Worse, as blacks were allowed to organize along racial lines, they not only beat up whites on the individual level but on the organized mob level. But all of this goes ignored because Jewish Power, the dominant force in the US, has as its top priority the subjugation of whites, not least by ‘white guilt’ about blacks.)
Panic about ‘white racism'(especially against Holy Blacks as the ‘iconic’ race) is what the Jews want, and it’s also why they hide their own power and shout down anyone who notices it as an ‘Anti-Semite’. The truth would make people the world over realize Jewish Supremacists rule America and, if anything, use blacks and homos as their allies, agents, thugs, and/or commissars.
All said and done, Jewish Power relies on the submission and obeisance of whites, e.g. if Jews want some Arab country to be smashed, they need white generals, managers, and soldiers to obediently carry out the mission. If whites were to wake up and stand with Palestinians and challenge Jewish Power, profound changes are possible, and that is what Jews fear most. But as long as white dummies or whummies keep with their roles as saps, cucks, puppets, and soul-slaves of Jews, they will just keep taking it up the arse.
Worse, as the visible enforcers and executioners of the Jewish Supremacist will, the world will see THEM as the Power in America. (It’s like the current administration is infested with Jewish Supremacists and globo-terrorists, but it goes by the name of “Biden’s regime”, as if that senile ice-cream-slurping fool has any say on policy matters.) Instead of showing any gratitude for white subservience, Jews just signal to the world, “Look, it’s the WHITES who are doing it!”
Anyway, if all Jews or all blacks can be sacralized, then so can all Palestinians. Even if Jesus wasn’t a Palestinian, Palestinians can be the new jesus, or ‘Palechristinians’. Nakba can be viewed as the Second Crucifixion, and Murdered Palestine can stand as the symbol for the World, the dream of its resurrection representing the hope of all mankind living under Jewish Supremacist tyranny in one way or another. Jewish-controlled US, as lone superpower, rules, threatens, or destroys the world, and Palestine has been at the epicenter of what Jewish Evil is capable of. The Nakba narrative and template(as what was done to the Palestinians now serves as blueprint against whites in the West and other goyim as well) also undermine the Shoah Narrative as the ultimate lesson Jews took from World War II was not to join with humanity against supremacism but to hoist their own supremacist flag, often masked with globo-homo and BLM symbolism, in every country. Jews are now caught in a moral trap where they feel a need to scream ‘nazi, nazi, nazi'(when not ‘Russia, Russia, Russia’) ever more loudly to hide the fact of their super-nazi-like dominance over the world.
Palestine-as-jesus or Palestine-as-christ iconography is especially useful, as well as urgently necessary, because Jewish Power is pushing for White Nakba, and if things continue as desired by the likes of George Soros, Ben Shapiro, Jennifer Rubin, Chuck Schumer, Rachel Levine, Merrick Garland, Rob Reiner, Sarah Silverman, Steven Spielberg, and etc., white folks will end up as the New Palestinians in their own ancestral homelands, which Jews regard merely as real estate to buy and sell than as racial-cultural inheritance of goyim. Look how Hollywood Jews take delight in the total eclipse of whites in California. Look how Jewish globalists celebrate the Great Replacement in London, Paris, Amsterdam, Malmo, and Brussels. Look how Jews decry Poland and Hungary’s efforts to preserve their lands and cultures. Before White Nakba, there was the original Palestinian Nakba, the template for the grand design for the world. New York Times certainly push it on Japan.
So much of the Jewish global agenda can be understood with a close examination of what was done to Palestine. Palestinians, even more than the Russians of the rabid Bolshevik period and Germans during the degenerate Weimar period, were the first complete victims of what Jewish Power is capable of. Always look to the first crime for clues to future crimes. Before other Christians came under the sword and met their martyrdom, Jesus got it first. Christianity eventually triumphed and why? Because Early Christians never forgot what happened to Jesus and kept the flame alive. In time, the Gospel spread and more people were won over to the Faith, even among the Roman elites.
In a similar way, Palestine can become the universal symbol for all the goyim crying out to be free from Jewish Supremacism that is baked into the cake of New Americanism emanating from the US as lone superpower. All peoples faced with cultural degeneration(from Jewish-promoted globo-homo) and demographic doom(from Jewish-promoted anti-natalism, diversity worship, and great replacement) could learn a thing or two from Palestinians who were the first victims of the Grand Jewish Design following World War II. As their own crucifixions loom in the future, goyim the world over should look to the destruction of Palestine as the first overt symptom of Jewish Power as the cancer of modernity.
Another factor makes the fate of Palestine resemble that of Jesus. Even though the Shoah has become central to 20th century victimology, what happened to Jews was akin to what befell Germans, Japanese, Italians, and Russians(and to a lesser extent to Anglos and French). Jews played with fire and got burned. While there is no moral justification for the killing of millions of Jews, it was an insane backlash against the real evils of Jewish Power. Likewise, while no sane person could justify the mass rape of German women or the incineration of Japanese babies by nukes, Germans and Japanese got smashed because their leaders played with fire and too many of them went along. This is even true of what happened to Russians as Stalin’s regime gambled just like Hitler’s regime. Stalin, a devil himself, made a pact with the devil in Hitler. While most Russians had no say in any of this, it’s generally been the case that the masses also get consumed in the conflagration set by their leaders. If too many high-powered Jews hadn’t done vile things in the interwar period as either finance-capitalist gangsters or radical communist fanatics, there would have been far less likelihood of someone like Adolf Hitler coming to power. World Jewry constituted a great power, and many innocent Jews got burned as the result of vile machinations of Jewish elites, just like plenty of Germans, Japanese, and Russians suffered as the result of reckless policies of their leaders.
In contrast, Palestinians were destroyed for no reason at all. They were a totally powerless people who posed no threat to anyone. They had no role in global imperialism, communism, fascism, World War I, World War II, and all the other destructive events and movements in the 20th century. They were just a people in a tiny corner of the world minding their own business. Yet, just because Zionists coveted their land, they had to be dehumanized and displaced. And it was done with the complicity of great powers that, following World War II, hypocritically preached to the world about human rights, especially in light of horrible atrocities committed by Axis Powers. Yet, when Jews chose to act like Judeo-Nazis, the Great Powers either lent their support or turned a blind eye.
It is especially in this sense that the destruction of the Palestinians was like the torture and crucifixion of Jesus. Jesus wasn’t some big shot who got a well-deserved comeuppance. He didn’t preach violence. He wasn’t out for world domination. He didn’t tell people to hate another bunch of people. And yet, He had to be destroyed because Jews saw Him as a threat. Plenty of people were killed in retaliation for their violence, ambition, terror, greed, and the like. The killers may have been hardly better or even worse, but the killed had it coming or sort of. In contrast, Jesus didn’t crave worldly power and didn’t preach violence to His flock. Yet, He was killed. Whatever one thinks of men like Julius Caesar, they had it coming as they were very much in the bloody game of power.
Palestinians, like Jesus, weren’t in the game. They were among the poorest and most powerless people on Earth. This isn’t to say they were saints and angels because, as individuals, many among them were surely lowlifes, skunks, idiots, and cutthroats like the rest of humanity. But on the global scale, they amounted to nothing and had no hand in 20th century tragedies. Yet, they had to be destroyed because Jews insisted on it and pressured the great powers to back them up.
In that sense, even though far fewer Palestinians died in the Nakba than Jews in Shoah(and Russians, Germans, and Japanese in WWII), theirs was a greater injustice within the context of power dynamics. Whereas other peoples got burned for playing with fire, Palestinians got torched for no reason at all but for the fact that they happened to live on the land that Jews coveted. Now, given Jewish historical and spiritual links to that land, it’s understandable why they wanted it for themselves. But Palestinians also have a history on that land that goes back as far as that of the Jews. Besides, Palestinians were accepting of some degree of Jewish immigration. When Jews trickled in and set up shops as mere neighbors, Palestinians didn’t mind so much. Alas, it was part of a long-term trick. It was when the Palestinians couldn’t help but realize the true nature of Zionism that they began to resist, but they were hopelessly outmatched as Jews had the backing not only of World Jewry but of the great goy powers. Also, Jews scripted the narrative via control of media and influence over Western leaders. So, even though Jews were the real masters of modern terrorism in Palestine, it was always the Arabs who were made out to be the murderous savages.
According to post-World War II neo-theology and historiography, the Christian Narrative of Jewish Deicide was worse than fiction; it was libel against an innocent people who had little or nothing to do with the killing of Christ. It was the Romans who done it. The New Narrative said the early Christians, in order to gain favor with the Romans, exaggerated the role of Jews while more-or-less exonerating the Romans via Pilate as an reluctant figure pressured by the blood-thirsty Jewish Mob. Thus, Christianity holds that Jewish hands were stained not only with blood but bloodlust.
Of course, none of us know what really happened. There’s no way to resolve this issue without a Time Machine to take us back some 2000 yrs, though some scholars insist Jesus never existed and was really a figment of imagination, a patchwork of various pagan myths fused with Jewish ideas.
That said, given Jewish behavior in regard to Palestine — assuming that Jewish character has remained consistent over the years — , it seems rather credible that Jews would have pressured the Romans into killing Jesus. (Likewise, Jewish behavior in the Post-WW II era lends credence to ‘antisemitism’ of earlier times. Jews insist that utterly irrational and baseless ‘antisemitism’ culminated in the Holocaust, but how likely is it that pre-WWII Jews behaved utterly unlike post-WWII Jews? Of course, Jews will insist they’ve done nothing wrong since the end of WWII. Yeah, just ask Russians of the 1990s, the Palestinians, and all those Arab/Muslim victims of Neocon wars. And consider 2020, the banner year of Jewish-promoted Covid nuttery and BLM lunacy.) There’s an uncanny similarity between the Jews-killed-Jesus Narrative and Jews-destroyed-Palestine Narrative. In both cases, Jews called on the authority and power of the dominant empire. Jews couldn’t have grabbed Palestine on their own. Jews needed to play games with the Ottoman Empire, the British Empire, Soviet Union, even National Socialist Germany, and finally the United States as the New Rome in the aftermath of World War II.
By the end of the war, Jews had come damn near close to fully realizing the Zionist project. The wood and nails were ready and set to crucify Palestine. But for the final act, Jews needed the backing of the preeminent world power, either USSR or US. Jews pleaded with, cajoled, bribed, threatened, and bullied Harry S. Truman, a weak and unimaginative figurehead, into sealing the deal that would finally murder Palestine. Truman was like the New Pilate, and when push came to shove, he relented and let the Jews have their way. And just like that, Palestine was finished with the so-called partition designed to provoke a war that would give Jews the green light to carry out the Nakba. (Now, from a purely Machiavellian realpolitik viewpoint, the American policy might have been worthwhile IF Jews felt gratitude and good will towards the White American Christian Community. But not only did it turn out to be a great moral failure but a strategic mistake as well because the ultimate Jewish Plan was nothing less than White Nakba, to reduce whites in US, Canada, Australia, and EU to the status of the Occupied, or the New Palestinians. Look how the likes of Jennifer Rubin are cackling with hideous glee about how whites are doomed to be minorities, not unlike Palestinians in what became Israel. In a sick way, it’s a smart move by the Jews. After all, even if Romans acceded to Jewish demands to have Jesus killed, Judea was eventually smashed by the Empire that scattered Jews to the four corners of the world. Apparently, modern Jews figured that THEY themselves should take over as the New Romans this time and do to white people what was done to the Jews under the Romans, i.e. ironically, whites, like the Palestinians, are to end up like Ancient Jews while modern Jews would be like the Ancient Romans at their height — no wonder Mark Zuckerberg likes to roleplay as Augustus. In 1948, Anglo-America was the New Rome, and Jews had to plead and beg to get what they wanted. But by 1990, Jewish Power became the New Rome, albeit a stealthy one, in overdrive in dehumanizing, demoralizing, dispossessing, displacing, and dispersing whites folks all around the world. The way things are going, Europe will become majority black African, and many whites will undoubtedly flee to other places. Whites remaining in Europe will be white whores with jungle fever and white dorks with cold feet. And there will also be tons of other nonwhites from Middle East and Asia, and the once-all-white Europe will resemble some multicultural bazaar in North Africa. In aiding and abetting the Jewish-Zionist destruction of Palestine, White Christian American not only committed itself to moral failure but strategic catastrophe on the grandest scale. Did they believe in reciprocity between whites and Jews: “I’ll scratch your back if you scratch mine”? What they got was, “I scratched your back, and you buggered my butt!” Sadly, even faced with the grim reality, most whites remain in the dark because their supposed white ‘leaders’, who actually do know what has taken place, have been lavishly bought off — the Bushes, Clintons, Bidens, and etc. of the world don’t need to worry about their family wealth, privilege, and connections — and go on duping the white masses that Americanism is all about ‘Muh Israel’ and ‘scape-krauting’ the Germans for the Holocaust in which pure-as-snow Jews, all six million of them, got killed. As it turned out, MAGA-Man Donald Trump didn’t turn out any different; even after being tarred-and-feather and ass-raped by Jewish Power, he only whimpers about how it’s only fitting that the Jewish Lobby should have total control over Congress. At least when Romans kicked Jewish butt, Jews knew they were beat. In contrast, white masses are so duped by white cuck elites that they believe their duty is to kiss the Jewish foot that kicks them.)
Pilate may have washed his hands of Jesus’s fate, but the Romans became complicit just the same. Even if driven by Jewish Rabbinical and mob fury, Romans served as executioners. Romans had the power and relented under Jewish pressure. Likewise, the US(and the West in general) has been complicit in the crucifixion of Palestine. It was the Western Empire, especially Great Britain, that led the way for the eventual destruction of Palestine. And it was the US that hammered in the final nails during Harry Truman’s administration. But why? What did Palestinians ever do to the West? Did they attack Europe? Did they threaten the US? Did they pose a danger to the world order? Were they responsible for the great atrocities in the 19th and 20th centuries? In the 19th century, the US wiped out entire indigenous populations and fomented a war with lazy backward Mexicans to grab territory. In the first half of the 20th century, Russia carried out communist atrocities, and Germany committed horrors against neighboring countries and Jews in World War II. Japanese aggression led to incalculable suffering in Asia. Palestinians had NOTHING to do with any of those ghastly horrors, but they ended up far worse than any of those people. Germany and Japan were smashed but allowed to recover and rebuild. Following WWII, US and Soviet Union became superpowers. And Jews, whose actions led to the rise of communism(fueled by Jewish radicalism) and National Socialism(in large part in reaction to Jewish perfidy), grew to great power and wealth in the latter part of the 20th century.
But Palestinians, who were responsible for no horrors in the 20th century, were wiped off the map by the Jews with the aid of Britain(for a time), Germany(for a time, as Zionists worked with Hitler to send more Jews to Palestine), Soviet Union(for a time), and the US(then and seemingly forever).
Injustice isn’t simply a matter of suffering but proportionality and culpability. For example, Germans and Japanese suffered a great deal in World War II, and their tragedies would rank among the greatest crimes ever had they been visited upon them gratuitously for no conceivable reason, like the horrors in the Book of Job. However, what they suffered in large measure was in retaliation to their own aggressions and atrocities. Even though Jews(and their cuck shills) don’t want to admit it, the Shoah was not unlike the horrors that befell the Japanese and Germans. Just like many innocent Germans and Japanese perished as the result of their elites’ malevolent policies, many innocent Jews bore the brunt of the backlash against vile actions of World Jewry(a great power in their own right) and the general acquiescence of the Jewish population. In contrast, Palestinians were wiped off the map for having done NOTHING. As such, in proportional terms, they were the biggest victims of the 20th century. A people who’d done NOTHING were robbed of EVERYTHING.
Are things all that different today? Have Jews learned the lessons of history like Germans, Japanese, Russians, and others did so at least in part? Jews committed terrible wrongs in Russia of the 1990s, but many upper-middle class and middle class Jews in academia and media mostly went along with the Jewish elite-driven agenda and narrative. How does the average Jew(who is above-average in education, income, and privilege by goy standards) feel about the Jewish-Zionist globalist elite’s warmongering and destruction of Arab/Muslim nations? Most of them just look the other way or fully support the vicious policies.
Take Bari Weiss, the supposed dissident intellectual of the Dark Web. She poses as a Little Jew dissed by the big shots at New York Times, but what is her poor little Jewess schtick? It’s to silence critics of Israel and to push the hardline on Jewish Power. To be generous, we may argue most Jews are simply ignorant of what’s going on because, like most idiot goyim, they are into video games and celebrity culture. But haven’t we been told that Jews are the most intelligent, informed, and educated people in the US and the whole world? Haven’t we been told that people with more education and privilege should be more cognizant and conscientious about how power is used? ‘Silence is violence’, we’ve been told many times by Jewish media and academia. Haven’t we been told of the Tikkun Olam mindset among Jews that is so concerned with human rights and the redemption of humanity?
If so, why are so many ‘little Jews’ so compliant with what are clearly the evil agendas of Big Jews? It’s been asked of the Germans, “How could the most educated and most cultured people in Europe support such a regime that brought about World War II and carried out the Holocaust?” In other words, the German people have no excuse because they were more advanced than most. (To their credit, Germans stuck with Weimar Democracy for fifteen hellish years of national humiliation and seemingly endless depression before they finally had enough, and even then, only one-third voted for Hitler.) Well, Jews are even more educated than the Germans ever were. Then, why have so many Little Jews been resigned to or supportive of the supremacist agenda of Jewish Power?
Sure, Jews yammer about how they’re opposed to ‘hate’, ostensibly the reason for their attempts to clamp down on ‘hate speech’ in the name of social justice or whatever. But in truth, Jews push ‘hate speech’ policies because they want to shield and carry on with their hateful ACTIONS. Jewish-controlled US foreign policy is a grocery list of murderous actions. US supports the Zionist destruction of Palestine. But if you criticize Zionism, you’re an ‘Anti-Semite’ guilty of ‘hate speech’. That’s how it works. By characterizing your criticism of Israel and Jewish Power as ‘hate speech’, the Power silences you and then, Jews can go on with their hateful actions against Palestinians without exposure and pushback. Or, consider the hateful actions against Syria, Iran, and Russia.
If you were to call out Jewish Power, then ADL and SPLC will sound the alarm on ‘Anti-Semitic Hate Speech’ and get you censored & de-platformed. And then, having silenced all criticism, Jewish power reverts to its hateful actions around the world via monopoly over US foreign policy. But then, Jewish Power pulls the same trick INSIDE the US. If any decent Christian florist or baker refuses to service satanic rituals like ‘gay wedding’, he or she will be slandered as ‘hateful’ and driven out of business.
In truth, what is more hateful than the globo-homo agenda that wages nihilistic war on normality and decency? After all, homos aren’t content to be left alone to do their own thing; they must make their agenda compulsory so that all of us must observe month-long celebrations of their deviancy and degeneracy. And globo-homo is part of Jewish Power’s world agenda. Homos within the Deep State work with Jewish Power to wage wars, subvert national economies, and spread cultural degeneracy. If you call out on these hateful actions, you will be the one accused of ‘hate speech’ because you dared to name the homo as partner-in-crime in globalist neo-hegemonism. If you ask a Jew, “Why are you hatefully murdering the Palestinians?”, the Power will accuse YOU of ‘hate speech’ for daring to notice the hateful actions of Jewish Power.
And now, chickens have come home to roost for white Americans who mindlessly supported and blessed Jewish Power and Zionism. It was not so long ago when, in the aftermath of 9/11, Jewish Power, via control of government and media, called on All Americans as One Patriotic People to unite in the War on Terror because, if we didn’t fight them over there, we would have to fight them over here.
Never mind the fishy circumstances around 9/11, and it wasn’t long before Jewish Power and its shills concocted ludicrous lies as rationale to invade Iraq, a nation that had NOTHING to do with 9/11. And then, with Barack Obama as their pet monkey, Jewish Power turned the so-called War on Terror into War with Terror against Libya and Syria. And all those ‘good anti-war liberals’ who had denounced George W. Bush as a no-good christo-fascist warmonger were either silent or supportive of this new policy that turned out to be even worse. Well, well, silence is violence.
But, like in the story of the “Boy Who Cried Wolf”, more and more Americans began to notice that Jewish Power is full of baloney. Even many Republicans who’d supported the Iraq War felt lied to and manipulated; with eggs on their faces, a few even apologized to their constituents. So, when Donald Trump lumbered along and said NO MORE to Neocon Wars(though he went super-Neocon on Iran), many looked to him as a real leader, even a savior, and incredibly, it was the conservatives who were more likely to be anti-war and critical of the Pentagon(whereas Democrats and RINOS were egging on Trump to do more bombing & invading and also to ramp up tensions against Russia and China).
The Jewish Script was beginning to unravel, but did Jews self-reflect on any of this? No, all they cared about was their power and control, and they embarked on unprecedented levels of censorship and denied financial services based on ideology. The very people who’ve been bitching endlessly about the Red Scare and Joe McCarthy were now pushing the Russia Collusion Paranoia and withholding financial services to American citizens based on ideology — everyone, regardless of ideology, has to pay taxes to bail out banks but banks can deny you service based on your political views, though don’t expect any institution or industry to cut off Zionists and Neocons for the ‘genocide’ against Palestinians and destructive wars against Arabs/Muslims. If Joe McCarthy got some pushback because powerful institutions and industries even then were controlled by Liberals and Leftists, there has been no pushback against the Jewish power-grab because Jews control everything and everyone, including the whore-politicians of the GOP.
You’d think some Republicans would probe into why Americans have been denied financial services based on ideology. Or why law firms have been pressured not to represent certain clients. By now, it should be obvious to all that Jewish hypocrisy knows no bounds. They very Jews who still rant about evil Joe McCarthy have NO PROBLEM with local governments(‘blue’ and ‘red’) shilling for Jewish Power to effectively criminalize BDS. The very Jews who called for boycott of Apartheid South Africa in the 80s(even as Israel was working with the Boer Republic) now pull strings to ensure Israel won’t face similar challenges even though Zionist crimes against Palestinians are 1000x worse than what white settlers did to blacks in South Africa. After all, the reason why whites needed apartheid was they’d allowed blacks to remain the demographic majority. In contrast, Jews expelled the vast majority of Palestinians in the Nakba pogroms to ensure Jewish demographic dominance in Israel proper(and the same game plan is being played in West Bank, which is being murdered with a thousand cuts). In West Bank where Jews are currently still in the minority, they practice their own kind of apartheid. But all these Jews, who pride themselves as ‘liberals’ and ‘progressives’, use their money and influence, as well as the fear factor and blackmail, to pressure goy shills to deny any voice to Palestinian-Americans.
It gives the lie to ‘Jewish Liberalism’ because, if Jews were truly liberal in principle, they would stand by the First Amendment regardless of tribal interests. It now seems Jewish support of civil liberties in the past was strategic than principled. It was really to amass power to be used to silence rivals, opponents, and critics, which include conscientious Jews who are smeared as ‘self-loathing Jews’. With their current dominance, Jews play every trick in the book to ensure all the goyim will grovel at their feet. The very Jews who recount for the umpteenth time the Hollywood Blacklist of the 1950s are utterly mum about Palestinian-American professionals who’ve been fired or demoted on account of refusing to pledge loyalty to Zionist ideology that has destroyed their people. Being bad is bad enough but to be so hypocritical as well… Apparently, many Jews don’t lose any sleep over this.
What was done to Palestinians is now being done to White Americans, especially to nationalists and populists. Malignant scumbag Merrick Garland sic the dogs on Americans who oppose CRT(Critical Race Theory), which isn’t really about racial justice but Jewish use of blacks to guilt-bait whites into shame and submission. If indeed CRT is about racial justice for all, why nothing about Zionist tyranny over Palestinians? And why nothing about black thuggery and terrorization of the weaker races? Is there anything in CRT that calls on blacks to shoulder responsibility for all the violence they’ve committed against whites and non-blacks? Of course not. CRT sanctifies black identity and narrative to burden whites with guilt and self-doubt, all the easier for Jews to steer rudderless white souls into serving Jews(and homos and blacks as allies of Jews). One thing for sure, CRT overlooks how mass immigration led to the ‘genocide’ of American Indians. But then, mass-immigration of nonwhites is part of the Jewish Plan to increase Diversity, which makes divide-and-rule over goyim so much easier.
There was a time when Jews like Merrick Garland called on White Americans to support Israel against the Arabs(usually portrayed as terrorists by Jewish Hollywood). But now, his ilk is vilifying White Americans as ‘terrorists’ for pushing back on CRT that aims to dehumanize white people. White people assumed(and many of them still stupidly do) that whites and Jews are allies against them no good Ay-rabs, thus blinding themselves to reality. In truth, Jewish Power has been the biggest sponsor of terrorism(just like Jewish gangsters played as big if not bigger role than the Italians, who were usually depicted as gangsters in popular fiction). Israel plays backup to ISIS scum in Syria. Obama the puppet of Jews armed the so-called ‘moderate rebels’ who were really a bunch of foreign Jihadi scum sent into Syria to tear it apart. Iran, along with Russia, saved Syria from terrorists, but Jewish Power used clowns like Trump and Pelosi to blame Iran for the terrorism. Trump had Soleimani killed at the behest of Jewish Supremacists. Whatever Trump may have said on the campaign trail, he proved to be another big fat whore of Israel, but Jews still hated him for stirring up white political consciousness that, following his example, grew disrespectful of the gatekeeping GOP establishment. Though Trump was style than substance, his swagger encouraged white populists to show defiance and push back(and to never apologize). Not since Charles Lindbergh — Joe McCarthy and Richard Nixon were small potatoes by comparison — have Jews been so triggered. But if Jewish animus against Lindbergh was understandable as a survival instinct(as millions of Jews were endangered in Europe by Nazi Germany), Jewish animus against Trump was mostly about tribal megalomania as their main concern today isn’t survival but global hegemony, something Jewish Supremacists have grown accustomed to as their birthright and destiny. If the main Jewish worry in the 1940s was how many tribesmen might be killed by Nazi wrath, the main worry today is how many goyim might be spared the Zionist-Globalist wrath. Jews hate the idea of anyone standing in their war path(with goy mercenaries to fill up the body bags of course). In foreign policy, Jews hated Trump as an obstacle to Jewish Neocons and Neolibs going ‘full nazi’ on whomever they hated. In other words, Jews hate Trump not so much because he was ‘literally Hitler’ but because he blocked the total Hitlerization of Jewish Power. But with total puppet Biden in office, Judeo-Nazis are saber-rattling against Russia and China.
At any rate, not only was Trump caricatured into a Hitler-like figure but his followers were painted as ‘domestic terrorists’. It’s come to a point where the Jewish-controlled Deep State now regards half the nation as quasi-terrorist, somewhat akin to how Arabs were depicted in the 1980s and 1990s. In other words, White American nationalists and populists found themselves in the same camp with Hamas and Hezbollah.
Then, how can the healing begin? One way is by revisiting the Palestinian issue. It is by atonement on the part of whites, especially Americans, and the transference of sympathy(and favored iconography) from Jews to the Palestinians. There is no other way given the nature of Jewish Power in our times.
Indeed, how did the healing begin following the death of Jesus Christ? It was with the realization that an innocent person had been killed, and furthermore, people had been either complicit in the killing or too afraid to speak out — even Peter denied Jesus three times. Jesus didn’t strive for worldly power and, if anything, said “give unto Caesar what is his”. He wasn’t about greed. He didn’t call for mass uprisings and wars. He preached compassion and peace but got killed real bad. The mob, fueled by Rabbinical authorities, called for blood and jeered on the violence directed at an innocent(though, to be sure, we can understand why Jews would have regarded Jesus as a heretic of the worst kind given the theological controversy). The killing of Jesus wasn’t like the execution of a captured criminal or fallen tyrant. It was His innocence that later inspired others to atone, repent, and spread the faith. The healing began with the acknowledgement of Jesus’s innocence and the murderous fanaticism of Jewish authorities & the cold-bloodedness of Romans executioners who did what was deemed politically most expedient. For sin to be cleansed, it must first be acknowledged and atoned for. The ensuing rise of Christianity turned the world around.
Likewise, there can be no healing and no hope for white people unless they repent for their crimes against Palestinians. Harry Truman’s Pilate moment and the destruction of Palestine sealed the fate of the US and the West in general, morally and strategically. In a way, Truman was worse than Pilate who, at the very least, sought to absolve himself of the bloodletting. In contrast, even though Truman initially acted with reluctance(and resentment toward Jews who strong-armed him), his administration ultimately went all-in on behalf of Jews whose Zionist dream had always been Great Replacement of the Palestinians.
It is through the realization of their complicity in the destruction of Palestine that whites can begin to understand the true nature of their bargain with the devil: Jews now intend to do to them what was done to Palestinians, i.e. Palestinian Nakba was mere dress rehearsal for White Nakba being implemented across the West by the likes of George Soros with full endorsement of New York Times, Harvard University, Hollywood, Wall Street, and the Deep State packed with servile dogs of Zion.
Jews recruited whites to support Israel against Arab ‘terrorists’ but now label countless millions of white Americans as ‘domestic terrorists’. And why? Because whites dared to protest the rigged election of 2020 — the art of Jewish Regime Change went from Iraq to Libya to Ukraine and finally came back to the US; indeed, Jews in media happily gloated about how the cabal had ‘fortified’ the election. ‘Democracy’ has simply come to mean whatever-Jews-want. Then, it’s only natural that Jews would deem as ‘terrorists’ half the nation because it objected to the dubious election of 2020. Or, because sane people dare to push back against CRT and tranny-nuttery. Or, because patriots don’t want illegals to pour across the US border. To great many Jews, opposing illegal immigration is tantamount to repeating the Holocaust, even though what the opposition to unrestricted illegal crossings has to do with Nazi crimes is anyone’s guess; after all, if Nazis were guilty of anything, it was illegally trespassing across national borders. (Perhaps, Jews conflate the opposition to mass immigration, legal and illegal, with rejection of Jewish immigrants/refugees during World War II, but that would imply that all these countries from which immigrants originate are akin to Hitler’s regime, a most ludicrous notion. In fact, most of these migrants/immigrants are not members of beleaguered minorities but of the majority population. Also, given what Jewish immigrants have done to Palestine and historic white America, did it ever occur to the Tribe as to why goyim were reluctant to take in large numbers of Jews with their long record of subversion, radicalism, and other forms of unpleasantness? Now, Matthew Yglesias is calling for billion more immigrants so that the Tribe, as the neo-brahmin caste allied with Hindu collaborators, can rule over ever more diverse goy helots who official religion shall forever be mindless worship of Jews-blacks-homos. The likes of him have zero feelings about the European stock that founded this country with a unique cultural imprint. To Jews, whites are simply more goy cattle to own and control. Whatever gifts Jews may have, self-awareness has never been their strong suit.)
Given most Jews are Democratic and given most Republican Jews are like Jennifer Rubin and Ben Shapiro invested in the Great Replacement or White Nakba, what hope is there for whites who continue to sidle up to Jewish Power in the ‘hail mary’-like hope that, golly gee whiz, maybe Jews will finally make nice IF whites, for the umpteenth time, reiterate their support for Israel’s destruction of remaining Palestinian territories and for Zionist war plans against Iran, as well as mindless vilification of Russia. The politics of Jewish demographics is as follows: 85% Democratic, 10% Neocon Republican(like Jennifer Rubin), and maybe 5% sympathetic to the interests of White Americans. And that 5% is utterly powerless and usually canceled like anyone else who opposes Jewish Power. Laura Loomer is an ardent Zionist, but she was censored for supporting Trumpian nationalism over globalism. Jewish Power is what it is. Therefore, even from a purely strategic viewpoint, there is no room for white agency because Jewish insistence on white submission simply cannot tolerate white identity & interests in the slightest. It’s not okay to be white, and on that point, the most ‘woke’ Jew is in full agreement with Jennifer Rubin and Chris Wallace. The ideal white male for Jewish Neocons is David French, a cuck-faced maggot who plays cheerleader to IDF death squads mowing down Palestinian women and children.
In a nutshell, the Jewish-White Alliance rests on the white misconception that Jewish feelings toward whites mirror white feelings toward Jews: sympathy, admiration, and positivity. In truth, Jews feel mostly fear, contempt, paranoia, and loathing in regard to whites(and who can blame them when so many whites are craven careerist cucks, idiot hillbillies, drunken ‘white trash’, and ‘dumb polacks’?) Now, if certain whites are perfectly content to take on inferior dog-like role vis-a-vis Jews, then the alliance is contractually valid. For sure, white cuckservatives, wimperals, and ‘Christian Zionist’ Evangelicals are more than happy to play the roles of sidekick, servant, and water-boy. But any proud white warrior who’d hoped for a roughly equal alliance of mutual respect needs to tear the contract as it’s as fraudulent as what Allen Klein tried to pull on the Rolling Stones and the Beatles.
The only way forward is with a new foundation, one that regards Palestine as the modern metaphorical jesus crucified by Jewish Power. Under the Zionist spell, white people see Jews as a sacred race of innocent Anne Franks, indeed to the point where they can’t tell Anne Frank from Leo Frank, who’s also been turned into a symbol of ‘innocent’ martyrdom despite ample evidence of the rape/murder.
As a result, whites cannot mentally process the fact that Israel was created by the destruction of an innocent people, the Palestinians. After all, if Jews are eternally an innocent people and if Jewishness is synonymous with holy victimhood, how could they have victimized or wronged another people? Then, it’s no wonder whites assume Palestinians got what they deserved, no less than Germans and Japanese in World War II. (Granted, Jewish victimology is effective precisely because it comes fused with Jewish ‘victorology’. Generally, people reserve their sympathy for wronged winners than wronged losers.) But what crime did Palestinians commit exactly, except for living on the land of their ancestors and wanting to keep it?
Sadly, the irrational and sacral assumption of eternal Jewish innocence blinds whites to the truth. To an objective mind, Man A attacking Man B is clearly the aggressor. But to a mind that assumes that Man A is eternally innocent, Man A could not have wronged Man B. Rather, Man B rudely happened to be standing in the way of noble Man A’s fist. So, Man B is to blame for having been knocked to the ground. Such is the dynamics of Narrative Logic, and Jews now employ it against White America with BLM. Like Jews, blacks are deemed eternally noble and innocent. So, if a black person acts violently, he did nothing wrong because blackness is deemed innately noble. If a black felon violently resists arrest and someone(felon, cop, or hapless bystander) gets killed, he mustn’t be blamed because blackness is a moral shield. By invoking ‘systemic racism’, even an obviously criminal act is rationalized as a form of resistance or understandable rage. The police officer in Ferguson who defended himself against Michael Brown found out the hard way.
Objective grasp of reality and true justice are impossible when we are led to assume certain peoples are innately noble and innocent simply on the basis of identity(defined by selective historiography); it is just another form of racial supremacism, evident in the West’s perspective on Jews and Palestinians. Holocaust Narrative isn’t merely a history lesson but a consecration of Jews as the eternal Anne Frank race(no matter what they do). Imagine fooling ourselves that Japanese everywhere and for all time are to be deemed angelic and innocent because of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. We don’t believe that Russians are eternally noble because of the Siege of Leningrad or that Chinese are forever innocent because of the Nanking Massacre. But for some reason, Holocaust has been made eternally synonymous with Jewishness, which means Jewishness might as well be a license to steal and kill since it’s been canonized as holy regardless of Jewish behavior. Indeed, noticing bad Jewish behavior is to indulge in the secular sin of using an ‘Anti-Semitic trope’, akin to using the Lord’s name in vain. Jews, blacks, and homos, the canonical groups.
Since 2020, blacks have been running around beating, looting, and murdering, but no matter, as BLM and CRT assure us that blacks are always right and, if nonwhites got hurt, they probably had it coming. We must pretend black rampages are ‘mostly peaceful protests’ while any noticing of bad black behavior is ‘racist’. FBI statistics, artificial intelligence on criminal patterns, and SAT scores are also ‘racist’ for indicating black over-representation in criminality and under-representation in intellectual ability. Of course, the pathological ‘woke’ fantasies about blacks are inseparable from philosemitic fantasies of Jews as eternal saints because both the Anne Frank cult and George Floyd cult were concocted by Jewish Power.
This isn’t to deny the historical tragedies of Jews or blacks(though they seem to ignore the sufferings, past and present, of just about all other groups). All peoples have been winners and losers throughout history; they been both tyrants and the tyrannized. History moves on, however, and it’s ludicrous for a people to eternalize a moment in history as their defining identity. Imagine a super-rich person pegging himself as always poor because he was once poor or because his ancestors were poor. The problem isn’t with Jews remembering the Holocaust but invoking it as a constant reminder to morally launder even their worst behavior. If Jewish Power keep getting its way without pushback, 21st century is going to make the 20th century look like a picnic. For how long will this charade go on?
We’re faced with a political paradox. Jews have made themselves out to be ‘powerless’ and ‘vulnerable’ precisely because they are so powerful. They control the narrative and iconography. While Jews weren’t the first and certainly not the only people who exploited victimology — American Revolutionaries certainly exaggerated the extent of British tyranny, if such even existed, over the New World colonies — , they seem unwilling to own up to the fact that they are the masters of the world and that entities like ‘US’ and ‘EU’ now have no meaning or purpose other than as malignant instruments of Jewish Power gone rabid and virulent. When Anglo-Americans or WASPS ruled, it was admitted by the elites and understood by all as to who held the power. But even with all their power and supremacist designs on the world, Jews would have us believe fragile and tender ‘liberal democracy’ is threatened by ‘white supremacists’. It’s like a billionaire accusing a working class person of ‘greed’. One thing for sure, powerful people who refuse to acknowledge their own power are unfit to rule. What has been said of Hitler is also true of Jewish Power. Appeasement never works, and anyone who wants to give another inch to Jews in the hope that “maybe just maybe, they will go easy and finally make nice” is a retard. Just ask the Palestinians if Jewish power lust has any self-restraining mechanism.
As it stands, the white world comprises two kinds of people. Total cuck-slaves who’ve surrendered everything to Jews and are happy to be slaves. The Bushes, Clintons, Bidens, and Blairs of the world. Jews are their masters, a condition they’ve accepted in their roles as ‘house negroes’. Whatever Jews want, shabbos goyim labor to get for them. If the Tribe wants globo-homo in every corner of the world, its wish is their command. If Jews want the West inundated with nonwhites, of course it’s a great idea. Plenty of white ‘liberals’ and ‘conservatives’ fit this mold.
The other kind of whites is more hesitant, even defiant at times, but doesn’t represent freedom either. These whites too have accepted the terms of agreement rendering them subordinate to Jews. As Evangelicals, they might revere Jews as the Chosen, i.e. God blesses those whose who bless the Jews. As libertarians, they might admire Jews for reasons of wealth and privilege. As crypto-‘racists’, they may vicariously partake of Zionism as a form of surrogate supremacism as white power of any kind is taboo. As Philo-Semites, they might be entranced with Jewish achievements in arts and culture. As adherents of HBD(human bio-diversity), they may be in awe of high IQ Jews as ideal philosopher kings, hopefully with whites as their preferred sidekicks: Jewish sires and white squires. Charles Murray and Jared Taylor disagree on lots of things but are totally agreed on the template of whites as junior partners of superior Jews(with also the aura of moral superiority as historical victims of ‘antisemitism’). Neither has ever expressed any sympathy for Palestinians. HBD mentality has a hardon for IQ and tends to be anti-humanist in its dismissal of ‘losers’ and the ‘mediocre’. It too can be a form of nihilism.
As Jews are clearly smarter and more successful than Palestinians(by a factor of 1000), HBD community feels Jewish winners have the natural right to kick Palestinian ‘losers’ around as a bunch of worthless helots, the punching bag of history. Even though Charles Murray feigns sympathy for working class white folks, he’s no George Bailey(IT’S A WONDERFUL LIFE) and shares with the likes of John Bolton and Michael Pompeo a simpering servility to the Neocons, the crowd at Commentary Magazine.
Following such moral logic — the smart can do as they wish to the dumb — , why shouldn’t Jews push the White Nakba agenda and reduce less intelligent whites to penury as the New Palestinians? HBD mentality is under the delusion that Jews harbor a certain sentimentality when it comes to whites. It’s like a dog in China hoping it won’t end up in the pot. Even a doomed dog cannot break free of the canine nature of obedience to superior humans, and HBD mentality is essentially dog-like towards Jews as the master race. So, even the slightest hint of pro-white attitude among Jews is grounds for ecstasy among HBD types. “Master loves me!”
So, HBD-types get all excited over Eric Zemmour of France even though his anti-Islam campaign is essentially Judeo-centric. He seems okay with the Great Replacement as long as newcomers partake of ‘French Culture’, which is a degenerate joke at this point. Also, for every Zemmour or Stephen Miller, there are 20 Jews with utmost hostility toward whites. But HBD sentimentality clings to hope of Jews as saviors. Indeed, if most HBD-ers had a choice between saving-the-white-race-by-offending-Jewish-feelings and losing-the-white-race-by-sparing-Jewish-feelings, they will opt for the latter.
Therefore, both kinds of whites are of the slave mentality. One kind has not only surrendered but is happy with its lot, somewhat understandable in their roles as favored ‘house negroes’. The other kind accepts Jews as masters but nevertheless longs for a degree of pride and autonomy. In other words, accept slavery in the hope of not being treated like a slave. But why would one not be treated as a slave if one has accepted slavery? John Derbyshire, for example, believes whites have no hope without winning over Jews. In other words, forget about white liberation, white autonomy, white independence. No, white future is inseparable from Jewish power; therefore, the most one can hope for is to convince Jewish Power not to kick whites around too much.
Thus, the conflict isn’t between white freedom and white slavery but between white slavery that kisses Jewish ass vs white slavery that begs not to be kicked in the butt. All said and done, both sides are a bunch of cucks. How low the Anglos have fallen. It turns out, for all the cult of individualism and liberty, Anglos are really about hierarchy and obedience, always in need of some top dog to serve. They need SOMEONE to dish out orders, and the most that Anglos can hope for is to be treated better by the Jewish Master.
One bunch of whites embraces unconditional slavery and another bunch of whites embraces conditional slavery. In a way, conditional slavery is worse because one who chooses slavery might as well go all the way. It’s like a whore who says “I’ll suck but won’t swallow.” To be free, one must totally reject slavery. True white freedom means deciding one’s own destiny regardless of what Jews feel, think, or want. The only sensitivity that matters is for whites to respect the freedoms of others as they expect their own freedom to be respected. Then, how odd and embarrassing that whites are most loyal to the very group that has done most to rob them of freedom.
Besides, why be sensitive to Jewish feelings when Jews are utterly oblivious to white feelings and, if anything, go out of their way to insult, mock, and condemn whites in the worst ways. What is this Congressional Gold Medal for Emmett Till about? It’s not about Till per se or about blacks in general. It’s essentially to rub the white nose in historical guilt complex, a denial of pride and heritage. When Jews pull such stunts, why don’t whites offer prizes to Palestinians and other victims of Jewish Evil? Or, how about posthumously to the victims of Jonathan Pollard as his treachery led to the executions of double agents in the USSR?
This is why whites lose. Jewish Power blows snot on the white face, but whites only think to lick and swallow the phlegm, which only encourages more arrogance and contempt among Jews. Jews control the gods, which is why the central political debate in the US has devolved into two sides yapping about “White Republicans are racists” and “White Democrats are the real racists.” Never mind there have been countless WHITE Emmett Tills brutalized by black savagery, especially since the Sixties. It never occurs to whites that Jewish treatment of Palestinians has been far worse than the Black American experience in the 20th century. It never occurs to whites to call out on what Zionist-Yinonist foreign policy has done to Arabs and Muslims of Middle East and North Africa. Whites of both stripes are utterly incapable of creating and controlling their own gods, which is why they bow to the grand narrative of Jewish Power.
Jews have accused whites of ‘white supremacism’ a million times, but one hardly hears any accusation of Jewish Supremacism from whites. Jews even sensationalize black ‘hate hoaxes’ to push the ‘white supremacist’ narrative, but whites don’t point to the actual Zionist hate campaigns against Palestinians(and other Arabs, especially in Syria) as obvious proof of Jewish Supremacism. Jews operate a global network — American Jews feel closer to Jews in Israel and other parts of the world than to goy Americans — , but they have the temerity to blame Donald Trump and the MAGA movement of ‘treason’ for having ‘colluded’ with Russia, an allegation more surreal than Jussie Smollett’s story of being half-lynched while holding a submarine sandwich. Jews never get accused of their daily treasonous activities in favor of World Jewry against American interests, but they level accusations of treason against whites based on pure fantasy. According to Jews, the 2020 riots and mayhem, where BLM and Antifa were given free rein by the Democrats and the Deep State, were ‘mostly peaceful protests’, whereas the 1/6 protest with limited violence was an ‘insurrection’, maybe the greatest tragedy in US history.
While Jewish obnoxiousness must be called out, white cravenness is also to blame. A bully just gets bullier unless he is pushed back, but no one dares to push back against Jewish Power. The current climate is like someone accusing you of murder you didn’t commit while you dare not call the accuser out for murder he is committing right in front of your eyes.
Besides, what is this talk of ‘treason’ when the current official globalist policy of the US is inherently treasonous and seditious? Open borders to illegal invaders, dehumanization of the white majority, legal protection for black thugs, slap on the wrist for Antifa degenerates, pardoning of the likes of Jonathan Pollard, and so much more. The current regime doesn’t serve majority American interests but minority Jewish global hegemonic interests. The white majority pledging loyalty to this regime would be like Hindus in Old India licking British boots as a show of patriotism. With complete takeover by the Empire of Judea, America is no more and so-called liberal democracy exists only as a shell. If American Jews conspire with World Jewry, whites should do likewise and link up with World Whitey or World Honkry. Even Trump who ran on AMERICA FIRST did little but serve ISRAEL FIRST. If anything, it’s too bad the MAGA movement did NOT collaborate with Russia and other pro-white forces around the world. If US Jews can work so closely with Israeli and Ukrainian Jews, why shouldn’t whites do likewise on an international scale? Are whites so terrified of what Jews may think and say? Then, they are soul-slaves yet to be liberated.
Even though Palestinians are in terrible straits of territorial loss and physical torment, they are in some respects better off than affluent whites in the West. They are mentally and spiritually free. They have no illusions of their situation, how it came about, and who did it. They know who their enemies are. They know it’s the Jews. They know whites in the West are pathetic, craven, and sappy cucks who grovel at the feet of Jews. Thus, Palestinians souls are free despite their bodies being stomped by the Zion-Boot.
In contrast, even the most affluent, comfy, and ‘well-educated’ whites in the West are soul-slaves in the Jewish Power Matrix. They lack autonomy of heart and mind to even realize they’ve been robbed of liberty and agency. But then, working class MAGA-tards are hardly better off when it comes to soul freedom. Their supposed nationalist hero Trump did precious little during his term but suck up to Zion whose idea of gratitude was to spread Covid hysteria to rig elections and fan BLM thuggery to intimidate whites, but I’m sure MAGA-tards will once again come out in droves to shout support for Trump every time he bleats about ‘Muh Israel’.
Just think. Palestinians got nothing but are soul-free, whereas whites got so much but are soul-enslaved. Imagine the possibility if the soul-freedom of Palestinians were to unite with the material-power of whites. Given that Palestinians are soul-free despite being body-crushed, there is a valuable lesson for whites: White healing and white liberation could begin by identifying with and learning from Palestinians. Thus, at the very least, whites can begin the rehab of breaking free of the addiction to Jewish Power, much like countless working class whites struggle every day to break free of the opioids pushed by the Sackler dynasty that cared not in the slightest for all the white dead. Then, like the Palestinians, whites can know who their real enemies are and what these people have in store for them.
However mighty you may be, you are fated to grow weaker and die if you fail to pinpoint the source of your woes. Even the strongest and healthiest man unaware of a malignant tumor will eventually succumb to cancer and die. In contrast, no matter how sick and debilitated you are, you can get on the road to recovery if the source of the disease is identified. Correct diagnosis is of the essence. In material terms, whites are currently infinitely better off than Palestinians, Arabs, and Iranians, but in the long run, they are doomed because they mistake their enemy as their dearest friend, even their master and god. Palestinians and Iranians know Jewish Power smears them as ‘terrorists’ and is out to get them. In contrast, whites are under the delusion that Jews are the best people in the world whose wisdom and advice must be heeded for whites to gain an ounce of redemption and a glimpse of heaven. Palestinians know all too well of the Zionist cancer that is out to destroy them, and they resist with all their strength, even if it’s just rocks in the hands of children. In contrast, white dummies or whummies look upon the metastasizing cancer of Jewish Power as the surest sign of health for Western Civilization. No wonder whites will go on losing out in territory, wealth, status, demography, and power.
However, if whites were to break free of the delusion and begin to identify with Palestinians, they will finally see the cancer for what it is and seek out proper treatment. Whites must embark on an intifada of their own against the George Soroses & Paul Singers of the world and the whole spectrum of Jewish Power Complex. Some whites place their hopes on figures like Yoram Hazony, someone who denies nationalist rights for Palestinians, someone who reserves tribal ethno-nationalism only for Jews while pushing milquetoast ‘civic nationalism’ on whites. It’s a losing hand.
The winning hand says whites of all stripes have much to gain by identifying with Palestinians. First, by following the Palestinian lead, whites can be freed of the illusion of Jewish friendship. White Christians identifying with Palestinians will realize Jewish Power targets Christianity for destruction. Jewish Power doesn’t lose sleep over all those dead or maimed Christian-Americans soldiers of Middle East wars. Jews don’t care about the destruction of ancient Arab Christian communities in the wake of US invasions that, if anything, emboldened Islamic terrorist elements who’d been held at bay by secular Arab leaders. If anything, Jewish Power aided extreme Islamic elements in Syria hellbent on murdering every Syrian Christian protected by Assad. In the US, Jews have pushed the globo-homo-ization of churches. Every Mainline church clown who’s come under Jewish Influence ends up worshiping George Floyd and Harvey Milk over God and Jesus.
Now, it’s understandable why some Christians saw Jews as less of a threat than the Muslims. Historically speaking, whereas Jews lived under Christian power, Muslims not only conquered the Holy Land but made inroads into Europe, even ruling over Spain, Greece, and parts of the Balkans for centuries. Also, whereas Judaism was always limited to Jews, proselytizing Islam and Christianity battled one another for the souls of the world. Jews didn’t try to convert Christians and Muslims, whereas Christians and Muslims sought to convert the other to their own faith.
But modern Jews have been different from their more insular ancestors. While they too weren’t interested in turning goyim into New Jews, they were zealously committed to bending all goyim to Jewish supremacist will. Jews planned on global mastery through finance, gangsterism, power of academia & media, secular quasi-prophetism, addicting goyim to vice(gambling, sex industry, drugs), universal goy guilt for having failed to prevent the Holocaust, the cult of Jewish Genius, and buying off most of goy whore politicians, especially in Anglosphere and EU. Also, by using homos and blacks as key allies to spread Globo-Homo and Afromania, both funded and coordinated by Jews, as means to spread the gospel of minority-elite-worship: Every society should elevate homos uber alles for their creativity, and every society should revere blacks as top rappers, athletes, and studs. Thus, even though Jewishness was limited only to Jews, Jewish Influence was meant to conquer and ‘convert’ all the world to cuckery before Jewish Power. At the very least, every Christian convert was theoretically equal to all other Christians in the eyes of God, and same was true of all Muslim converts before Allah. In contrast, to be ‘converted’ to Jewish Influence meant your kind would be relegated to inferior status with Jews and their proxies as the main gods.
When White Christians in the US sided with Jewish Zionists against Christian Arabs/Palestinians, they effectively sold their souls to the Devil. Perhaps, in their vengeful minds the Zionist project was like a proxy Crusade to take back the Holy Land, but a good number of Palestinians were actually Christian, and if anything, it was the white Christians who were being used as proxies of Jews. Also, Muslims revere Jesus even if they don’t worship Him as God. In contrast, Jews hate Christianity even more than Islam and revile Jesus & the Apostles as the worst traitors in Jewish History for having transferred the Jewish God to the filthy goyim; Jews much prefer Jonathan Pollard who passed US secrets to Israel.
Also, contrary to Neo-Evangelical delusions, Christianity emerged in opposition to Judaism, thereby effectively nullifying the original Covenant. If indeed there was nothing wrong with Judaism, what need for Christianity? But Christian Zionists place Jews, Jewish feelings, and Jewish ambition above themselves, even above Jesus and Christian precepts. They are morons. And for all their Christian piety, they cackle with sadistic glee at Palestinian suffering and conflate Palestinian resistance to the Occupation in West Bank with black thug riots in the US. Intifada against Israeli tanks and invader-settlers is akin to blacks breaking windows and fleeing with Air Jordans in Christian Zionist eyes. Worse, they seem willfully blind to(or even supportive of) what Jews have done to the Holy Land, which is now a circus arena for globo-homo sodom-and-gomorrah debauchery. Christian sympathy for Jews who survived the horrors of World War II made sense given the Faith’s special concern for the weak and vulnerable. But over the years, Chri$tian$(especially in winner-takes-all America) have come to admire Jews for their power, money, and influence. So, even though super-powerful Jews have been crushing the weak and powerless Palestinians, Christian America plays whore to the Jewish pimp and kicks Palestinian women and children into the dirt.
Just consider what Christian America would gain, morally and spiritually, by directing its sympathy toward Palestinians. One thing for sure, the Holy Land would be a lot holier if Arabs, Christian and Muslim, had maintained control over it. There would be no month-long globo-homo degeneracy out in the streets. And, the Holy Land wouldn’t be the source of seismic tremors threatening the entire region. It is precisely because Jews control Israel/Palestine that the West has been destabilizing Middle East and North Africa. An Arab-dominant Palestine would have no incentive to foment wars in service to demonic Jewish interests. Of course, it would have been even better if Jewish Power hadn’t been allowed absolute control over Anglosphere, but that’s another story.
American Christians won’t be the only ones to gain by identifying with Palestinians. So will ‘based’ whites(or base-ists) who believe in the preservation of their race; yes, the so-called ‘racists’ according to Jewish-controlled academia/media. White racial consciousness and Palestinian ethnic consciousness have something in common in that both are targeted for deconstruction by Jewish Power. Jews say there’s no such thing as whiteness and, to the extent it exists, only serves evil. Likewise, many Jews deny the very concept of Palestinian as a mere historical construct.
If ‘Palestinian’ is a social construct, why not argue the same for ‘Jewishness’? After all, Jews and Arabs have much in common genetically. Furthermore, isn’t modern Israel also a social construct as it bears little resemblance to ancient Judea, which, by the way, was never all-Jewish. But don’t expect any logical consistency among Jews who twist any argument to their tribal ends. When Jewish Power impugns both white identity and Palestinian identity, isn’t it about time white ‘racists’ and Palestinian nationalists see eye to eye? Isn’t it foolish for people like Pat Condell and Jared Taylor to go on dreaming of some magical alliance with Jews by dumping on Arabs and Muslims?
To an extent, the pro-Israeli stance among many whites is a racial as well as a cultural or spiritual issue. Denied racial identity and pride in their own homelands, many whites channel their repressed ‘racism’ toward supporting Europeanized Jews(who stand for Western Civilization and ersatz whiteness) against Palestinians/Arabs/Muslims who are seen as brown or the ‘other’. This is, of course, rather ironic since white Christian Europe and the modern ‘Aryan’ West regarded Jews as the ‘other’, even of another race entirely. The Shoah was predicated on Jews constituting a separate race with an innate urge to subvert and destroy goy orders(something Jewish behavior has been amply demonstrating in the past decades as if to prove the Nazis right). Also, at least 50% of Jews in Israel are from the Middle East and North Africa, and they look more like Arabs than Europeans. But just like what the kid says of ghosts in THE SIXTH SENSE, people will see what they want to see.
White Liberals(and I mean real liberals who uphold liberty and tolerance than the fake mandatorian shillibs who shill for the Deep State) also have much to gain by identifying with Palestinians. If indeed liberals are committed to equal justice and constitutional protections, what are they doing sucking up to almighty Jewish Power that so often resorts to Kafkaesque tyranny? Jewish-dominated Democratic Party’s suppression of BDS is anti-liberty and anti-Constitutional. It also denies equal justice for Palestinians. How can white liberals sleep at night while aiding and abetting naked Jewish-Zionist violation of basic liberties and human rights?
White conservatives will also gain by identifying with Palestinians, especially at a time when the vile gangstoid Merrick Garland targets them as ‘domestic terrorists’. And, just like Zionists aid ISIS terrorists to tear communities apart in Libya, Syria, and Iraq, Jewish Power in the US funds and protects BLM and Antifa thugs who rampage around destroying property and beating up patriots. When Jewish Power treats white conservatives like Israel treats Palestinians, what are conservatives doing sucking up to Jewish Power and turning their backs on the plight of Palestinians?
None of this is to suggest Palestinians are angels. As individuals, they are no better or worse than the rest of humanity. And, many Palestinian terrorist acts were as counter-productive as cruel and vicious. The cold-blooded(or maybe hot-blooded) murder of Israeli athletes at the Munich Olympics in 1972 was one such incident(though US routinely retaliates with drone strikes that take out entire families and bystanders). On the other hand, did the Jewish-Palestinian conflict begin in 1972? MUNICH by Steven Spielberg and Tony Kushner would have the viewer believe it all began with Palestinian violence against Israeli athletes. In retaliation, we observe Israeli operatives acting as heroically as ruthlessly; there’s even the suggestion that Israelis have scruples and wouldn’t dare harm children — sure, just ask the Gazans on that issue. Thus, even though the Israelis act cold-bloodedly, their violence seems justified within the historical framework. But the conflict didn’t begin in 1972 but in 1948, which can further be traced back to the 19th century when Zionist project hatched a secret plan to erase Palestine from the map. But, weasels Spielberg and Kushner didn’t begin the story there because doing so would have justified Palestinian violence as retaliation against Jewish Imperialist destruction of Palestine.
In individual acts of violence, Palestinians have been as deranged and unhinged as the Jews — some of their attacks in the 1990s cannot be rationalized on any grounds, though the US that retaliated against Pearl Harbor by slaughtering millions of Japanese civilians is hardly one to judge. However, in the framework of larger history, Palestinian violence is clearly more justified than the Jewish kind because Zionism initiated plan to destroy Palestine and reduce the native Arab population into helots.
Some may argue that what was done is done, water under the bridge, and Palestinians must accept the new reality because Israel isn’t going to go away, just like American Indians had no choice but to make peace with White America and like Germans after World War II had to accept the loss of German territory to Poland. But, even this argument fails because Jews won’t allow Palestinians to keep even West Bank, which, despite being majority Palestinian, is being taken gobbled up by Jewish ‘settlers’ with total support of the US whose whore politicians are in pockets of Jewish donors and blackmailers. In other words, Nakba didn’t end in 1948. It continues in West Bank. And Zionism has turned into Yinonism of destabilizing and wrecking Arab/Muslims nations in MENA(Middle East and North Africa). Jews have also de facto declared White Nakba on the West. Given these dire developments, how can there be any peace with Jewish Supremacist power?
Palestinian suffering didn’t turn Palestinians into saints and angels; that much must be understood, and the world mustn’t make the same mistake as it did with Jews, blacks, and homos, though owing largely to Jewish control of media and Western governments. We must never assume a Palestinian individual is better than us simply for his identity, as is often the case with Jews, homos, and blacks.
Rather, the Palestinian Question should be treated as (1) a failed moral crisis on the global scale and (2) matter of symbolism and metaphor. Palestinians as individuals are not little jesuses or christs; however, Palestine as an ethnic, historical, cultural, and geographical entity has been kicked into the dirt, dragged through the mud, and crucified. And why? A people who had no hand in the great crimes of the 20th century were robbed of their land, dignity, and humanity by Zionists with the full backing of the greatest powers in the world. How can these powers preach about ‘human rights’ when they helped destroy an innocent people? At least the US had Pearl Harbor as reason for destroying Japan. What did Palestinians ever do to Americans or to the rest of the world? Furthermore, given Jewish Power’s virulent hatred for White America, how perverse is it for whites to unconditionally appease Jewish demands while spitting on Palestinians whose tragedy was mere prelude for what Jews have in store for whites?
Romans took part in the killing of Jesus but eventually came around to admitting wrong. Roman authority participated in the torture and killing of an innocent who, unlike the Zealots, didn’t call for violent uprising against the Empire. A man who preached universal love and peace. White Americans must realize their neo-Romanic role against Palestine as the jesus among nations/peoples. They took part in the crucifixion of Palestine; they aided and abetted in the Nakba.
Like the Romans, whites can come to a reckoning with what they’d been party to and embark on the righteous path, healing not only their souls but Palestinian bodies. By embracing Palestine as a symbol of resistance to Jewish Supremacism, the entire world may be inspired to strike at the tentacles of Jewish financial parasitism, imperialist wars, cultural degeneracy, and demographic transformation. Palestinians never stopped resisting despite their weakness in relation to Israel, which is not only the most powerful nation in the Middle East but has the backing of US, the lone superpower, and all its satellites. Even Russia and China more-or-less look the other way, cozying up to Israel while only giving lip-service to Palestinian rights. Same goes for most Arab countries. Only Iran has been a steadfast supporter of the Palestinians, even at great economic cost to itself.
Palestinian resistance against Jewish Supremacist nihilism can serve as a model for all peoples. Whites have no future if they accept roles as servants and dogs to Jewish Power. However, they may yet reverse course and save themselves if they shelter the Palestinian fire from the Zionist storm. Then, one day, it can spread into a World Fire that engulfs and destroys the ambitions of Jewish Supremacism.
It will be good for Jews too, as nothing is more sobering and humanizing than defeat, especially of evil that resides in the hearts of all men of all peoples. Norman Finkelstein argued that Zionism, in all its manifestations, has grown so toxic, blind, arrogant, and out-of-control that only serious setbacks or defeat can restore some semblance of reality and decency among Jews of US and Israel. When hubris takes over, the only solution is to slay the beast. Palestinian children have only rocks in their intifada, but if whites were to join the struggle against the Zionist Goliath, the world may yet be saved. It is the only path forward if Palestinians and Whites are to be free.
Indeed, white freedom is now inconceivable without Palestinian freedom — the two have been joined at the hip by historical circumstances — as both peoples are dehumanized by the same enemy. As long as whites endorse the Zionist project, they are emboldening Jews to be amoral. Then, why would amoral Jews who stomp on Palestinian faces be any nicer to white faces? If the events of 2020 didn’t offer 20/20 vision to whites as to the true nature of Jewish Power, whites are just plain dumb.
Just like Jews conflate their minority-elite supremacism with globo-homo hegemony, whites need to realize their aspirations and Palestinian aspirations are one and the same. The Palestinianization of white folks is now the grim reality engulfing the West. US now has a two-tier legal system. Jewish globalists who pushed Russia Collusion Hoax, spread Covid Hysteria, and fanned BLM flames are sitting pretty without repercussions, indeed with all the privileges in the world and more profits than ever. But Mike Lindell has been de-banked for calling out on election fraud. And even Donald Trump, the President of the US, was de-platformed by Big Tech with the backing of the Deep State, which protected all the corruptions of the Clintons and Bidens as stooges of Jewish Power.
In other words, unless whites totally submit to Zion, they are to be treated like Palestinians. And yet, all we get from the likes of Trump and Lindell is ‘Muh Israel’ and “Why do you Jews beat on me when I beat on Palestinians real good?” Just pathetic. Whites who embolden Jewish immorality against Palestinians are shocked, just SHOCKED, when it is turned against whites. It’s like some jerk egging on a thug beating up a child but then whining when the thug punches him in the face.
If you’re a slave and witness the master beating another slave, will you attain freedom by siding with the master against the bloodied slave OR by siding with the bloodied slave against the master? Whites have been cucking to Jews for decades, and how have things turned out? The man currently in charge of the justice department is Merrick Garland who sees a ‘terrorist’ in any uppity white goy who says NO. What did Donald Trump get from Israel and American Jews after four years of taking the Zion-Dong up his bung? When will whites wake up and say enough is enough?
Jews regard whites as slaves, therefore the white dream of Jews-and-whites as partners-in-crime is a dumb illusion. The only path for white salvation and survival is by atoning for the white/Christian role in the great crime of Nakba. Only then can the white race be freed from bondage to the Judeo-Nazi Cabal.
Does anyone really think there is a future for the white race at the feet of the likes of Chuck Schumer, Jennifer Rubin, Rob Reiner, Jerry Nadler, William Kristol, Alan Dershowitz, Yoram Hazony, Ben Shapiro, Benjamin Netanyahu, Michael Bloomberg, Sergei Brin, Mark Zuckerberg, Barney Frank, Steven Spielberg, Tony Kushner, Sarah Silverman, Howard Stern, Elena Kagan, Victoria Nuland, Madeleine Albright, and etc.?
Needless to say, the obvious disadvantage of siding with Palestinians against Jews is the former got nothing while the latter got everything. From a purely strategic perspective, an alliance with Palestinians against Jews would go against the principles of realpolitik but if and only if Jews were supportive of whites, i.e. if most Jews were like Eric Zemmour than Paul Singer. But, given Jews are as hostile to whites as to Palestinians, any dream of a Jewish-White alliance is a pipedream.
In contrast, white alliance with Palestinians would not only be good moralpolitik(or idealpolitik) but good realpolitik because REALITY has Jewish Power denouncing the slightest sign of white identity as ‘white supremacist’, white pride as ‘nazi’, white awareness of Jewish power as ‘antisemitic’, and white desire for national autonomy as ‘unacceptable’ and ‘undemocratic’. According to Jewish Power, Hungary is intolerably ‘autocratic’ and ‘anti-democratic’ because the majority of its people oppose demographic replacement. In other words, the Jewish Plan insists on White Nakba.
This doesn’t mean Jews as individuals cannot join with whites, but they will remain as outliers because Jewish Power and the overwhelming majority within Jewish communities favor globalism and the Democratic Party(though GOP isn’t far behind in groveling before the Tribe). At any rate, Jews who join with whites mustn’t lay down conditions — American Conservatism appeased Jewish-dominated Neo-Conservatism, and how did that turn out?
While whites have a responsibility to reject supremacist tendencies of their own(as aggression and arrogance are coded into the human DNA), they must insist on the preservation of the white race regardless of the sensitivities of Jews or any other people.
As for white Christians, they need to uphold the old time religion without apologetics to Jews. While certain aspects of Christianity may be offensive to Jews, such goes for any religion; surely there are passages in the Talmud that are shocking to goyim, but we don’t see Jews bleating and crying about it. Whites should accept friendly Jewish individuals as allies, not totems. There’s a tendency among whites, especially so-called conservatives, to prop up some token-totem black or Jew(or even homo) as a sacred shamanic figure or human banner. Take Candace Owens. Nothing she’s said hasn’t been said by countless white conservatives, the only difference being she is black, as if to imply a statement is truer simply for emerging from black(or Jewish or homo) lips. So, one black saying 2 + 2 = 4 one time has more value than a thousand whites having said it a thousand times.
Such assumptions are a depressing sign that even white ‘conservatives’ have internalized the gods chosen by the Jews. Why else would white ‘conservatives’ fall over each other to roll out the red carpet for the likes of Yoram Hazony? “A Jew, we have a precious Jew on our side!” It’s as if even whites on the political right feel whiteness is insufficient for validation and must rely on the stamp of approval from one of the sacred groups: Jews, blacks, and homos. Never mind Hazony-ism is only the latest reiteration of ethno-nationalism-for-Jews-only while whites are handed ‘civic nationalism’. Red meat for Jews, veggie burger for goyim. Oddly enough, so-called civic nationalism has value ONLY WHEN grounded in ethno-nationalism. In the past, non-Anglo whites and nonwhite minorities genuinely strove to assimilate into Anglo-America because it was taken for granted that American character was essentially of British origin.
Ideally, a people will want to ally with the friendly superior against the hostile superior. Or a people may appease the friendly superior against the inconvenient inferior. But, it works out ONLY IF the superior is friendly. The problem is the superior has a tendency to look upon inferiors as subjects than allies. This is where whites misconstrued their relations with Jewish Power. Whites were aware of the superior qualities of Jews, not least in finance, academics, and prophetic prowess. Whites had no reason to hate or hurt Palestinians, but Arab natives stood in the way as an obstacle to Jewish ambitions and as an inconvenience to whites currying favor with rapidly ascendant Jews. So, whites, in the hope of gaining Jews as allies, looked the other way while Jews destroyed Palestine.
But, Jews had no real desire to be friendly, let alone equal, with whites. For reasons of resentment(history of persecution), paranoia(far greater white numbers), envy(white looks especially), contempt(hostility toward Christianity), and arrogance(whites as a bunch of ‘dumb polacks’), Jews sought mastery over whites, not equal partnership. (By the way, how could it have been equal even if Jews opted for friendliness when 2% of the population would have the same prestige as the white goy majority? The idea was doomed at its very conception.) Even when whites went out on a limb to be especially supportive of the Tribe and Israel, Jews were hellbent on turning whites into minorities, infecting white souls with ‘guilt’, pushing jungle fever on white women & cuckery on white men, replacing Christianity with queertianity, and encouraging nonwhites to dump on whites.
Even though whites gorged on philo-semitism, Jews refused to even take a sip of pro-white sentimentality. After all, the era of good feelings can vanish overnight. Germany, which had historically been among the kinder nations to Jews, became the most anti-Jewish, but then why? Jews are loathe to admit it, but they fear the revival of white ‘antisemitism’ due to Jewish penchant for scoundrelism, radicalism, subversion, and corruption. Besides, a kind of omerta(or ‘omerscha’) prevents even relatively good Jews from blowing the whistle on bad Jews. In order for good will to prevail between whites and Jews, both sides must settle on mutuality and reciprocity, but too many Jews are like Jerry Nadler, Adam Schiff, Bernie Madoff, Jordan Belfort, and Jonathan Pollard. And when push comes to shove, even good Jews will back those bad Jews against good goyim. Jewish Tribalism disingenuously invokes universal justice to renege on their mutuality contract with White America. Apparently, White America has been too ‘sinful’ for Jews to honor the agreement, but then, whites better not say anything about the dark aspects of Jewish History lest they be delegitimized as ‘Anti-Semites’.
What better example than Jonathan Pollard to illustrate the problems of White-Jewish Alliance? He was surely one of the worst spies in US history, but Jewish Power had him sprung from jail, padded with a fat bank account, flown to Israel in a private jet, settled into a plush job, and giving a big fat middle finger to the US while standing next to Netanyahu no less. We can understand bad Jews trying to have Pollard freed, but good Jews did nothing to stop it. But then, even most so-called ‘liberal Jews’ choose tribal solidarity over any consideration for Palestinians who are on the verge of losing West Bank as well. These so-called ‘liberal’ Jews turn a blind eye to Israel’s support of ISIS against Syria. Given such attitude and behavior among too many Jews, what goes by the name of ‘antisemitism’ is, as often as not, rational and justified. The tragedy of National Socialism was it exploited this rational reaction to Jewish perfidy to push Germany’s own kind of supremacist madness.
When the superior is hostile to your kind, the only option is to side with inferiors against it. Take the Cold War. US was locked in global conflict with Soviet Union as the other superpower. Given ideological differences and geopolitical disagreements, US and USSR could only be hostile superiors. So, what did the US do? It sided with inferior China that, in the seventies, was a basket-case nation in fear of the Soviet behemoth. So, despite tensions, the US grew nearer to inferior China against superior Soviet Union, and it made the Russians mad as hell.
While the superior has a great advantage over the inferior, an alliance of various inferiors can restrain the superior, like the current alliance of Russia, China, and Iran against the Jewish-controlled US as the lone superpower with EU and Japan in its pocket. It’s like a bear can destroy any lone wolf but a pack of wolves makes a bear nervous and may even bring it down.
Furthermore, siding with the inferior can be morally advantageous IF the inferior is portrayed as the victim of the superior. This worked like magic for the Soviet Union in the Vietnam War: powerful imperialist US crushing the national aspirations of poor Vietnamese peasants. US later used the same trick against the USSR: freedom-loving Afghan resistance against the Evil Empire. Jews certainly played similar cards in American politics and culture. Jews used blacks, an inferior element in the US, against whites as the dominant element by pulling out the ‘racist’ card from their sleeve ever so often; it put White America on the ropes morally.
Jews also gained key advantages by claiming inferiority(or vulnerability as hapless Jews hounded by ‘antisemitism’ from the dawn of time) as a moral shield against criticism: Rich and powerful Jews donning the Anne Frank mask as the perennial get-out-of-jail pass. And even though Zionists enjoyed decisive advantage over Palestinians from the moment of Israel’s inception, Israel was always portrayed as the underdog on the verge of being wiped out by quasi-nazi Arabs; later, Jews willfully mistranslated the remarks by the Iranian president Ahmadinejad as meaning ‘wipe Israel off the map’ when he said the existing Israeli regime will pass from history.
Any honest assessment of reality leads to one conclusion. By now, it should be no-brainer that whites have so much more to gain by siding with Palestinians. Not only is an alliance with Jews a moral failure but a strategic failure as well because Jewish Power insists on being a Hostile Superior toward whites. Of course, Palestinians, as a pipsqueak inferior, don’t have much to bring to the bargaining table in terms of money, talent, skills, and connections. Still, they have great symbolic value as an innocent people horribly wronged by Jewish Power. The fate of Palestinians is a terrifying demonstration of what Jewish Power is capable of. And given that Jews across the political spectrum have chosen to ignore the worsening plight of the Palestinian people, the Myth of Jewish Morality is finally coming to light.
Even a so-called ‘liberal’ Jew is more offended by an “It’s Okay to be White” poster than Sheldon Adelson’s chilling remark that an atomic bomb should be dropped on Iran as a lesson; these secular Jews may not worship God but sure worship their own ethno-ego as the final arbiter of which peoples should be smitten or spared. Now and then, Jews, especially of ‘liberal’ pedigree, will make some fuss about ‘social justice’, but it’s mainly to distract us from Jewish Supremacist power(and its baleful impact on the world, not least to Palestinians) by getting people all worked up about Ukrainians(about to be invaded by Russians), Uighurs(about to be ‘genocided’ by Han Chinese), Kurds(about to be butchered by Syrians), and of course blacks(about to be mass-murdered by white ‘racist’ cops) & illegal invaders(about to be denied sanctuary and meet the fate of Jews in the Holocaust). Or, it’s all about how trannies represent the latest in human evolution, so go cancel some T.E.R.F who refuses to accept a man with balls as a ‘woman’.
Another advantage of siding with Palestinians(and Arabs in general) is that they will never gain the upper-hand over whites. The average Arab IQ is what? Somewhere around 90 or 95? The only worry for whites is the numbers, and while Arab/Muslim demography may be a problem in Europe, it isn’t in the US. Besides, the most vocal proponents of mass immigration in EU and the US have been Jewish. Neither Arabs nor Muslims will ever gain demographic dominance over the US. (Some say Islam becomes problematic when Muslims reach 10% of the population, but Islam will never take over North America. At any rate, it’s even truer that Jews become far more problematic with much lower numbers, at even below 1%. Just ask the Russians who survived the dark 1990s in a country where Jews comprised barely 1% of the population. Jews are less than 2% of the US, but look what they’ve done to the country.)
White alliance with Jews was always nerve-racking because of Jewish superiority: higher intelligence and stronger stomach for cunning and ruthlessness, aka chutzpah. Whites always crossed their fingers and hoped for the best with Jews, especially as Holocaustianity rendered as taboo any criticism of the Tribe(while Jews tirelessly pulled out every embarrassing skeletos from the white closet). But whites need have no such worries about Palestinians and Arab-Americans because those dummies couldn’t gain the upper-hand over whites even if they tried. Arabs are lower-IQ, divided, confused, and a rather silly people, like Peter O’Toole as T. E. Lawrence said.
It’s like the difference between whites living with blacks and whites living with browns. Whites living with blacks are understandably nervous because blacks are naturally more muscular and aggressive. So, in order for whites to be safe, blacks must be good. Blacks must be like the latter-day George Foreman who laughed heartily and cooked burgers for white folks on infomercials. But if blacks act like early Mike Tyson, whites are in big trouble.
In contrast, while there are some tough and nasty browns, most are shorter and smaller than whites. So, an average white guy has little to fear from even a brown baddie, that is unless the fool hooks up with a Mexican drug gang and goes loco.
This is why it’s always a safer bet to ally with others who are on par with or inferior to your kind. They pose less of a threat. A coyote is better off allying with a badger than with a wolf or cougar. The problem is Americans are obsessed with winning, like George C. Scott as George Patton said. America will not ‘tolerate a loser’, and so, whites got to cheering for blacks as winners in sports and revering Jews as winners in brainy fields. Whites may have done so in the hope that black winners would be ‘nice’ toward whites like Joe Louis the ‘brown bomber’ or in the hope that Jewish winners would be endearing like Henny Youngman of ‘take my wife’ fame. Whites dreamed of Sidney Poitier but ended up with burning cities and Detroit. Whites dreamed of Neil Simon but ended up with the deep state shoved up their arse by the likes of Merrick Garland and Victoria Nuland.
Though pro-Palestinian voices are more prevalent among Western leftists, Western nationalists have the better argument in favor of the Palestinian cause. After all, Palestinians are seeking national liberation and autonomy. Furthermore, Palestine was wiped off the map as the result of mass immigration. The Western Left is confused and contradictory because it denounces the Zionist-Israeli encroachment on West Bank but, at the same time, calls for the Great Replacement or White Nakba in the West. In the Western leftist mind, it’s wrong for Jews to replace Palestinians in West Bank, but it’s wonderful for nonwhite hordes to replace whites in Europe, the homeland of the white race for many eons. (Race is most important because it predated civilization, culture, and history. No white race, no white whatever-else-that-followed. Race = life. Just as a person must first come into existence as life before adopting an ideology, there can be no white culture/history/civilization without there being the white race in the first place. White Race is the foundation of white-everything-else.)
Take Jeremy Corbyn and Roger Waters, both on the Left. It’s good of them to speak up for Palestinians who are living under Zionist tyranny. Surely, they know of the Nakba and the current Occupation. Yet, Corbyn and Waters are for massive invasion of Europe by nonwhites. They call for tearing down all walls in the West. If being replaced was terrible for Palestinians, why is it wonderful for whites? The Western Left admires the Palestinian resistance against the Great Replacement but then demands that whites welcome and celebrate their own demographic demise in Europe, America, Australia, and Canada. The Western Left is totally schizo.
But then, much of the so-called Right in the West is also schizo, if only out of fear of Jewish Power. So, even though Hungarian and Polish nationalists must know that the grand Jewish Plan is White Nakba, they mouth the usual platitudes in support of Israel, Israel, Israel. Donald Trump and Tucker Carlson embody this right-schizo mindset. Trump sought to decrease illegal border crossings but fully endorsed the ongoing Zionist caravans into West Bank. Tucker Carlson praises Israel for its strict border policy without ever mentioning that such was denied to Palestinians who were replaced by Jewish invader-immigrants.
But then, the Palestinian diaspora is equally confused. Even though Palestinians lost their homeland to mass immigration(of Jews), in their role as immigrants in other countries(especially white majority ones) they support the agenda of great replacement, or White Nakba. Whites are faced with White Nakba but cheer on the Palestinian Nakba while Palestinians who suffered the Palestinian Nakba cheer on the White Nakba.
These retardations must come to an end, and the only solution is an Honest Left-Right fusion that calls for universal nationalism and opposes any form of neo-imperialism, which, by the way, was the core political-moral template during the Cold War when both empires, US and USSR, championed national aspirations against the Other Empire. But with US as the lone superpower following the collapse of the Soviet Union, the new global formula has been New World Order, now even more insane with the likes of Klaus Schwab, Mr. Magoo gone mad.
A white awakening and sympathy-alliance with Palestinians will be a real game-changer, one that will fundamentally transform the political-moral paradigm for all the world. Of course, it cannot begin with the white elites who have been bought-and-sold by the Zionic Cabal. Collaborators will collaborate, and they are simply in too deep with Jewish Power.
The awakening must begin at the margins with baby steps before taking giant ones. The great moral tragedy for Jews is in having exploited a great historical horror as moral cover to perpetrate great horrors of their own. It’s a recurring theme in history. Christians used the name of slain Christ to do the most unchristian things. Communists preached social justice as rationale to tyrannize and murder. National Socialists invoked German humiliation of the Weimar years to humiliate other nations and deny them autonomy.
With Jews, the moral betrayal is especially contemptible because no historical event has been as sanctified as the Shoah. It was as if, through such an earth-shattering tragedy, Jews had attained knowledge and wisdom beyond those of any other people. But, it wasn’t long before Jewish Power milked the Holocaust as Holy Cow to silence all opposition, in the process becoming more abusive, arrogant, corrupt, and greedy. Twenty-two years into the 21st century, the world is on the precipice of World War III because Jewish Supremacist Hegemonism and its Anglo-Cuck minions simply cannot tolerate any nation, people, community, or movement that refuses to bend to the agendas and icons of Zion.
Once the paradigm begins to shift and white liberation from Jewish Supremacism dawns on the horizon, whites also need to form a holy alliance with the American Indians. Not for nothing have some Palestinians made the link between themselves and the so-called ‘Native Americans’. Both peoples were erased by mass migration/immigration/invasion. An alliance of whites and American Indians is most promising for both moral and strategic reasons. In moral terms, the greatest and most tragic casualties of American History were the Red Savages. Most nonwhites around the world regained independence from Western Imperialism, whereas the American Indians lost their ancestral lands forever.
Still, as the late Chief David Yeagley pointed out, it wouldn’t have been a total loss for the Red Man if whites hadn’t opened the gates to the world. As long as the US remained an overwhelmingly white majority nation with a White Narrative, Indians had a special place in US history and moral geography. The pride of white achievement in the New World was laced with tragic sense of what befell the natives. White Triumph was wedded to Indian Tragedy.
Therefore, apart from their own interests, whites felt obligated to prioritize the identity, history, and the needs of the American Indians above all else. With that in mind, the last thing the US should be doing is fling open the gates to all the world. If Indians losing their lands to whites was tragic enough, it would be doubly, triply, and quadruply tragic for remaining Indians to lose the land to all the world, not least to obnoxious Asian-Indians without an ounce of warrior pride and always talking funny.
The best moral argument against further mass immigration is to restore the pride and dignity of the Indians. Also, acknowledging American Indians as the most tragic figures in US history will knock Jews down a peg or two. Indeed, why is there so much stuff about the Holocaust in the US when it didn’t happen here? If any ‘genocide’ did take place on American soil, it was to the American Indians.
It was Jewish moral authority that made mass immigration into a MORAL issue. Just ask yourself. What moral justification does anyone around the world have in demanding entry into the US(or, for that matter, into Europe that now follows in the footsteps of America)? It was one thing for Asian-Indians to lay claim to India, Algerians to lay claim to Algeria, or for the Vietnamese to lay claim to Vietnam. After all, they were natives living under occupation by foreign powers. The ONLY non-white people with a MORAL claim to America are the American Indians. They alone have a compelling deep-rooted case of territoriality. (If Zionism carries any moral legitimacy, it’s because Jews do have historic roots in the Holy Land.) White Americans also have a moral case of ownership because, despite having taken land from Indians, they founded and built a civilization that couldn’t have come into existence otherwise.
But why does the rest of the world have any MORAL claim on America? Such is the bogus ‘moral construct’ of Jewish Power that has America as some ‘propositional’ beacon/haven for all the ‘wretched around the world’, by which the likes of Emma Lazarus mainly meant fellow Jews. She sure didn’t care one iota about the red natives who were massacred or herded into reservations to subsist as wretched refuses ignored by the world. Besides, Jewish merchants took part in the ‘genocide’ of the tomahawk-wielding Red Savages.
Jews fashioned their tribal ambition into a moral imperative. While the Jewish desire to emigrate to America was understandable from a material perspective, it had no moral justification, indeed even less so than the project of Zionism as Jews had historical and spiritual roots in the Holy Land. If any people have a quasi-zionic claim to America, it’s the American Indians who’d lived on the land not only for centuries or millennia but for tens of millennia. For them, it wasn’t the New Land but the Old Land of their forebears. Jews sentimentalized their dream of America into a moral imperative and then projected this dream onto all wanna-be immigrants, especially nonwhite ones, as Jews planned on using Diversity to play divide-and-rule among goyim.
The moral imperative must be transferred back to the American Indians. But because Indians are too lazy, drunk, or hooked on TV, it’s up to whites to do the job for them. Well, why not? Blacks were too childish and disorganized to do anything on their own, so Jews stepped in and ran black organizations that later proved advantageous for Jewish control over blacks. Much of blackness was stage-managed by Jews. Then, whites must do it for the Indians and elevate Indian spokesmen, leaders, and politicians up the totem pole. It’s about time whites stopped with silly games like playing ‘pretendians’ and got down to the real business of being best friends with the Indians, like Lone Ranger and Tonto. It’s like Jews didn’t have to pretend to be black to lend support to blacks(and use them for Jewish interests).
Besides, if ‘white guilt’ is really a thing, what do whites have to be most guilty of? Most will agree that genocide is the worst possible crime, and as the ‘genocide’ of the American Indians resulted from endless waves of immigrant invasions from the Old World, the overriding moral imperative of 21st century America must be to end all immigration and pull all resources to revive American Indian communities.
And then, to associate the cause of American Indians with that of the Palestinians. As for the Holocaust, it happened in Europe and should be of no concern to Americans. Unlike the Nakba that was carried out with US backing, the Holocaust was an entirely a Nazi-German affair. US took part in the murder of Palestine, not the murder of Jews.
If Americans don’t lose sleep over millions of Ukrainians killed by Bolshevism or millions of Cambodians slaughtered by the Khmer Rouge, why should they prioritize the Jewish Holocaust as something of special significance to Americans? If Americans need to remember a genocide, it is of the American Indians. And if white Americans really want to atone for past history of racial discrimination, they need to address the issue of Jim Crowitz, apartheid, and Nakba over in Palestine, now Israel(that is fast gobbling up West Bank).
At any rate, there’s a strategic angle as well in the White-Indian Alliance. No matter how much whites sympathize with and gush over American Indians, the latter will never gain the upper-hand over whites because they simply don’t have the numbers, intelligence, cunning, skills, and the will. White-Indian alliance would be one where whites would forever remain dominant, whereas the White-Jewish alliance turned into Jews lording over whites reduced to the level of cucky-wuck dogs.
It all begins with a paradigm shift among whites on the Palestinian issue. Palestine as jesus, the first flicker that may catch on until it grows into a World Fire. Of course, it’s a long shot as most whites are dummies, but then, who ever gave Christianity a chance when its early adherents were being kicked around like a soccer ball between Jews and Romans?
GOP finalmente se concentra no esforço dos democratas para armar a grande tecnologia contra a América
Em uma entrevista com o fundador da VDARE, Peter Brimelow, quase exatamente um ano atrás, Torba elaborou : “O teatro kabuki de ir atrás é um grande erro”.
A Seção 230 protege apenas a Big Tech do que os usuários dizem em suas plataformas; não protege os usuários pelo que eles dizem , nem protege o que a própria Big Tech diz. Isso só pode ajudar as start-ups que, novamente, podem ser eliminadas pelo lawfare esquerdista .
Além disso, Torba acredita que o Partido Republicano deve parar de perseguir a Seção 230 exigindo “neutralidade” porque o governo não deve decidir o que é neutro:
A seção 230 não diz nada sobre neutralidade política… quem impõe essa neutralidade? Você vai ter o governo, ou alguma agência do governo, vindo para Gab? Entrar no Twitter? Entrar no Facebook? E tipo, olhar por cima do ombro e dizer: “Oh, isso está errado” ou “Você fez isso errado”? Quem vai policiar a neutralidade? E como é a neutralidade? Direito?
E, na prática, lutar contra a Big Tech pela Seção 230 é um perdedor porque “a Big Tech despejou meio bilhão de dólares em lobby na última década”:
Eles canalizaram dinheiro e contribuíram para os dois lados do corredor. Mais ou menos, eles são donos do Congresso. Então, se alguma coisa acontecer com a Seção 230, será pró-Big Tech e solidificará seu poder de monopólio sobre certas verticais.
As medidas do Partido Republicano mudariam a Seção 230 para proteger explicitamente a liberdade de expressão [A equipe republicana da Câmara descreve os princípios para reformar o escudo de responsabilidade da tecnologia , por Lauren Feiner, CNBC, 15 de abril de 2021]:
O líder da minoria na Câmara, Kevin McCarthy, que frequentemente ataca a Seção 230, quer uma nova disposição que proteja a liberdade de expressão [ Scrap 230 and Start Over , RepublicanLeader.gov, 15 de outubro de 2020]. Se a Big Tech fizesse isso, ela poderia manter sua proteção de responsabilidade [ Declaração do líder McCarthy sobre os esforços contínuos do Twitter para silenciar os americanos , RepublicanLeader.gov, 3 de janeiro de 2022].
Jim Jordan e alguns outros removeriam grandes plataformas de tecnologia da proteção de responsabilidade geral se não respeitarem a liberdade de expressão [ Republicanos da Câmara apresentam projeto de lei para retirar as grandes empresas de tecnologia das proteções da Seção 230 , por Brooke Singman, Fox Business, 28 de julho de 2021 ].
Josh Hawley propôs um conselho de revisão para determinar se as grandes plataformas de mídia social defendem a liberdade de expressão. Não fazer isso, novamente significaria perder a proteção de responsabilidade
Bill Haggerty descartaria a Seção 230 “em favor de uma proteção de responsabilidade mais restrita que reflita seu propósito original e que não possa ser usada como uma licença para censura politicamente tendenciosa ” , 2021].
A chave para proteger patriotas como Torba é garantir que a lei não possa ser usada contra plataformas alternativas.
Outra ideia para reinar na Big Tech: designar as empresas gigantescas como transportadoras comuns, como o juiz adjunto da Suprema Corte Clarence Thomas sugeriu em um parecer na primavera passada [ Justice Thomas Gives Congress Advice on Social Media Regulation , por Abby Lemert e Klaudia Jaźwińska, Lawfare , abril 12, 2021]. As transportadoras comuns incluem ferrovias e companhias telefônicas que prestam um serviço de interesse público. Eles são regulamentados para garantir que atendam a todos os clientes da mesma forma. Thomas quer que a Big Tech seja tratada da mesma maneira.
O projeto de Haggerty atualizaria as leis de transportadora comum para incluir grandes plataformas de mídia social, além de exigir que os gigantes da tecnologia divulgassem suas políticas de moderação. Isso ofereceria maiores proteções aos patriotas e sua livre expressão.
O Texas aprovou recentemente um projeto de lei que diz que “as plataformas de mídia social funcionam como operadoras comuns, são afetadas pelo interesse público, são fóruns públicos centrais para o debate público e desfrutam de apoio governamental nos Estados Unidos”. Também afirma que “as plataformas de mídia social com o maior número de usuários são operadoras comuns em virtude de seu domínio de mercado”. O projeto de lei só precisa ser testado no tribunal [ O governador do Texas, Greg Abbott, assina o projeto de lei de combate à censura de mídia social , por Allum Bokhari, Breitbart, 10 de setembro de 2021].
O esforço do Texas é superior ao projeto de lei anti-censura do governador da Flórida, Ron DeSantis, que foi derrubado no tribunal. Não designou as plataformas como operadoras comuns e simplesmente proibiu a censura da Big Tech na Flórida. Estava fadado ao fracasso. Um tribunal federal disse que violou a Primeira Emenda. DeSantis a ignorou desde [ Juiz Federal Bloqueia a Lei de Censura de Tecnologia da Flórida , por Allum Bokhari, Breitbart, 1º de julho de 2021].
Os republicanos podem fazer mais sobre a censura tecnológica se obtiverem a maioria no Congresso. Eles podem intimidar executivos de tecnologia em audiências e forçar uma legislação sensata através do Capitólio. Mas eles não devem inadvertidamente esmagar a liberdade de expressão, ou dar aos democratas o poder de fazê-lo.
Joe Biden sabe exatamente o que mais censura fará: paralisar a oposição política para refazer os Estados Unidos da América com políticas públicas abertamente totalitárias e, claro, A Grande Substituição. É por isso que os republicanos devem proteger as proteções de responsabilidade que permitem que as plataformas de liberdade de expressão existam e prosperem, enquanto restringem os abusos que tornam a liberdade de expressão impossível – e a Primeira Emenda inoperante – como uma questão prática.
A Historic American Nation deve ser autorizada a se defender nas principais plataformas que fornecem notícias e informações. Os republicanos devem legislar com sabedoria quando tiverem a chance.
Washington Watcher II [ Envie-lhe um e-mail ] é um informante anônimo de DC.
(Republicado de VDare com permissão do autor ou representante)
Expansão da OTAN: o que Gorbachev ouviu
Michail Gorbachev discutindo a unificação alemã com Hans-Dietrich Genscher e Helmut Kohl na Rússia, 15 de julho de 1990. Foto: Bundesbildstelle / Presseund Informationsamt der Bundesregierung.
Documentos desclassificados mostram garantias de segurança contra a expansão da OTAN para líderes soviéticos de Baker, Bush, Genscher, Kohl, Gates, Mitterrand, Thatcher, Hurd, Major e Woerner
Painel de Estudos Eslavos aborda “Quem prometeu o quê a quem na expansão da OTAN?”
Washington DC, 12 de dezembro de 2017 – A famosa garantia “nem uma polegada para leste” do secretário de Estado dos EUA, James Baker, sobre a expansão da OTAN em seu encontro com o líder soviético Mikhail Gorbachev em 9 de fevereiro de 1990, foi parte de uma cascata de garantias sobre a segurança soviética dada por líderes ocidentais a Gorbachev e outros oficiais soviéticos durante todo o processo de unificação alemã em 1990 e em 1991, de acordo com documentos desclassificados dos EUA, União Soviética, Alemanha, Grã-Bretanha e França postados hoje pelo Arquivo de Segurança Nacional da Universidade George Washington ( http:/ /nsarchive.gwu.edu ).
Os documentos mostram que vários líderes nacionais estavam considerando e rejeitando a adesão da Europa Central e Oriental à OTAN desde o início de 1990 e até 1991, que as discussões sobre a OTAN no contexto das negociações de unificação alemã em 1990 não se limitaram estritamente ao status do Oriente. território alemão, e que as subsequentes reclamações soviéticas e russas sobre serem enganados sobre a expansão da OTAN foram fundamentadas em memcons e telcons contemporâneos escritos nos níveis mais altos.
Os documentos reforçam as críticas do ex-diretor da CIA Robert Gates de “avançar com a expansão da OTAN para o leste [na década de 1990], quando Gorbachev e outros foram levados a acreditar que isso não aconteceria”.  A frase-chave, sustentada pelos documentos, é “levar a crer”.
O presidente George HW Bush havia assegurado a Gorbachev durante a cúpula de Malta em dezembro de 1989 que os EUA não tirariam vantagem (“Eu não pulei para cima e para baixo no Muro de Berlim”) das revoluções na Europa Oriental para prejudicar os interesses soviéticos; mas nem Bush nem Gorbachev naquele momento (ou, aliás, o chanceler da Alemanha Ocidental Helmut Kohl) esperavam tão cedo o colapso da Alemanha Oriental ou a velocidade da unificação alemã. 
As primeiras garantias concretas dos líderes ocidentais sobre a OTAN começaram em 31 de janeiro de 1990, quando o ministro das Relações Exteriores da Alemanha Ocidental, Hans-Dietrich Genscher, abriu a licitação com um grande discurso público em Tutzing, na Baviera, sobre a unificação alemã. A Embaixada dos EUA em Bonn (ver Documento 1) informou a Washington que Genscher deixou claro “que as mudanças na Europa Oriental e o processo de unificação alemão não devem levar a um ‘prejuízo dos interesses de segurança soviéticos’. Portanto, a OTAN deve descartar uma ‘expansão de seu território para o leste, ou seja, aproximá-lo das fronteiras soviéticas’”. na OTAN. 
Esta última ideia de status especial para o território da RDA foi codificada no tratado final de unificação alemão, assinado em 12 de setembro de 1990, pelos ministros das Relações Exteriores Dois-Mais-Quatro (ver Documento 25). A ideia anterior sobre “mais perto das fronteiras soviéticas” está escrita não em tratados, mas em vários memorandos de conversa entre os soviéticos e os interlocutores ocidentais de mais alto nível (Genscher, Kohl, Baker, Gates, Bush, Mitterrand, Thatcher, Major, Woerner e outros) oferecendo garantias ao longo de 1990 e 1991 sobre a proteção dos interesses de segurança soviéticos e a inclusão da URSS nas novas estruturas de segurança europeias. As duas questões estavam relacionadas, mas não eram iguais. Análises subsequentes às vezes confundiam os dois e argumentavam que a discussão não envolvia toda a Europa. Os documentos publicados abaixo mostram claramente que sim.
A “fórmula Tutzing” imediatamente se tornou o centro de uma enxurrada de importantes discussões diplomáticas nos 10 dias seguintes em 1990, levando ao crucial 10 de fevereiro de 1990, encontro em Moscou entre Kohl e Gorbachev, quando o líder da Alemanha Ocidental obteve o consentimento soviético em princípio. à unificação alemã na OTAN, desde que a OTAN não se expandisse para o leste. Os soviéticos precisariam de muito mais tempo para trabalhar com sua opinião doméstica (e ajuda financeira dos alemães ocidentais) antes de assinar formalmente o acordo em setembro de 1990.
As conversas antes da garantia de Kohl envolveram discussões explícitas sobre a expansão da OTAN, os países da Europa Central e Oriental e como convencer os soviéticos a aceitar a unificação. Por exemplo, em 6 de fevereiro de 1990, quando Genscher se encontrou com o ministro das Relações Exteriores britânico Douglas Hurd, o registro britânico mostrava Genscher dizendo: “Os russos devem ter alguma garantia de que, se, por exemplo, o governo polonês deixar o Pacto de Varsóvia um dia, eles não se juntaria à OTAN no próximo.” (Ver Documento 2)
Tendo se encontrado com Genscher em seu caminho para as discussões com os soviéticos, Baker repetiu exatamente a formulação de Genscher em seu encontro com o ministro das Relações Exteriores Eduard Shevardnadze em 9 de fevereiro de 1990 (ver Documento 4); e ainda mais importante, cara a cara com Gorbachev.
Não uma, mas três vezes, Baker experimentou a fórmula “nem uma polegada para o leste” com Gorbachev na reunião de 9 de fevereiro de 1990. Ele concordou com a declaração de Gorbachev em resposta às garantias de que “a expansão da OTAN é inaceitável”. Baker assegurou a Gorbachev que “nem eu nem o presidente pretendemos extrair vantagens unilaterais dos processos que estão ocorrendo”, e que os americanos entenderam que “não apenas para a União Soviética, mas também para outros países europeus é importante ter garante que, se os Estados Unidos mantiverem sua presença na Alemanha dentro da estrutura da OTAN, nem uma polegada da atual jurisdição militar da OTAN se espalhará na direção leste”. (Ver Documento 6)
Depois, Baker escreveu a Helmut Kohl, que se encontraria com o líder soviético no dia seguinte, com muito da mesma linguagem. Baker relatou: “E então eu fiz a seguinte pergunta para ele [Gorbachev]. Você preferiria ver uma Alemanha unida fora da OTAN, independente e sem forças dos EUA ou preferiria uma Alemanha unificada ligada à OTAN, com garantias de que a jurisdição da OTAN não mudaria um centímetro para o leste de sua posição atual? Ele respondeu que a liderança soviética estava pensando seriamente em todas essas opções [….] Ele então acrescentou: ‘Certamente qualquer extensão da zona da OTAN seria inaceitável.’” Baker acrescentou entre parênteses, para benefício de Kohl, “Por implicação, A OTAN em sua zona atual pode ser aceitável”. (Ver Documento 8)
Bem informado pelo secretário de Estado norte-americano, o chanceler da Alemanha Ocidental compreendeu um dos principais resultados soviéticos e assegurou a Gorbachev em 10 de fevereiro de 1990: “Acreditamos que a OTAN não deve expandir a esfera de sua atividade”. (Ver Documento 9) Depois dessa reunião, Kohl mal pôde conter sua empolgação com o acordo de princípio de Gorbachev para a unificação alemã e, como parte da fórmula de Helsinque, que os estados escolhem suas próprias alianças, para que a Alemanha pudesse escolher a OTAN. Kohl descreveu em suas memórias andando a noite toda por Moscou – mas ainda entendendo que ainda havia um preço a pagar.
Todos os ministros das Relações Exteriores ocidentais estavam a bordo com Genscher, Kohl e Baker. Em seguida, veio o ministro das Relações Exteriores britânico, Douglas Hurd, em 11 de abril de 1990. A essa altura, os alemães orientais votaram esmagadoramente pelo marco alemão e pela unificação rápida, nas eleições de 18 de março, nas quais Kohl surpreendeu quase todos os observadores com uma verdadeira vitória. As análises de Kohl (explicadas pela primeira vez a Bush em 3 de dezembro de 1989) de que o colapso da RDA abriria todas as possibilidades, que ele teria que correr para chegar à frente do trem, que precisava do apoio dos EUA, que a unificação poderia acontecer mais rápido do que se pensava possível – tudo acabou por ser correto. A união monetária ocorreria já em julho e as garantias sobre a segurança continuariam chegando. Hurd reforçou a mensagem de Baker-Genscher-Kohl em seu encontro com Gorbachev em Moscou, 11 de abril de 1990, dizendo que a Grã-Bretanha claramente “reconhecia a importância de não fazer nada para prejudicar os interesses e a dignidade soviéticos”. (Ver Documento 15)
A conversa de Baker com Shevardnadze em 4 de maio de 1990, como Baker descreveu em seu próprio relatório ao presidente Bush, descreveu com mais eloquência o que os líderes ocidentais estavam dizendo a Gorbachev exatamente no momento: “Usei seu discurso e nosso reconhecimento da necessidade de adaptar A OTAN, política e militarmente, e desenvolver a CSCE para assegurar a Shevardnadze que o processo não produziria vencedores e perdedores. Em vez disso, produziria uma nova estrutura europeia legítima – uma que seria inclusiva, não exclusiva”. (Ver Documento 17)
Baker disse isso novamente, diretamente a Gorbachev em 18 de maio de 1990 em Moscou, dando a Gorbachev seus “nove pontos”, que incluíam a transformação da OTAN, o fortalecimento das estruturas europeias, mantendo a Alemanha não nuclear e levando em consideração os interesses de segurança soviéticos. Baker começou suas observações: “Antes de dizer algumas palavras sobre a questão alemã, eu queria enfatizar que nossas políticas não visam separar a Europa Oriental da União Soviética. Já tínhamos essa política antes. Mas hoje estamos interessados em construir uma Europa estável e fazê-lo junto com você.” (Ver Documento 18)
O líder francês François Mitterrand não estava em sintonia com os americanos, muito pelo contrário, como evidenciado por sua declaração a Gorbachev em Moscou em 25 de maio de 1990, que ele era “pessoalmente a favor do desmantelamento gradual dos blocos militares”; mas Mitterrand continuou a cascata de garantias dizendo que o Ocidente deve “criar condições de segurança para você, assim como a segurança europeia como um todo”. (Ver Documento 19) Mitterrand escreveu imediatamente a Bush em uma carta “ cher George ” sobre sua conversa com o líder soviético, que “certamente não nos recusaríamos a detalhar as garantias que ele teria o direito de esperar para a segurança de seu país”. (Ver Documento 20)
Na cúpula de Washington em 31 de maio de 1990, Bush se esforçou para garantir a Gorbachev que a Alemanha na OTAN nunca seria direcionada à URSS: “Acredite, não estamos empurrando a Alemanha para a unificação, e não somos nós que determinamos o ritmo desse processo. E, claro, não temos nenhuma intenção, mesmo em nossos pensamentos, de prejudicar a União Soviética de forma alguma. É por isso que estamos falando a favor da unificação alemã na OTAN sem ignorar o contexto mais amplo da CSCE, levando em consideração os laços econômicos tradicionais entre os dois estados alemães. Tal modelo, a nosso ver, também corresponde aos interesses soviéticos”. (Ver Documento 21)
A “Dama de Ferro” também participou, após a cúpula de Washington, em seu encontro com Gorbachev em Londres em 8 de junho de 1990. Thatcher antecipou os movimentos que os americanos (com seu apoio) fariam na conferência da OTAN no início de julho para apoiar Gorbachev com descrições da transformação da OTAN para uma aliança mais política, menos militarmente ameaçadora. Ela disse a Gorbachev: “Devemos encontrar maneiras de dar à União Soviética a confiança de que sua segurança será garantida…. A CSCE poderia ser um guarda-chuva para tudo isso, além de ser o fórum que colocou a União Soviética totalmente em discussão sobre o futuro da Europa”. (Ver Documento 22)
A Declaração de Londres da OTAN em 5 de julho de 1990 teve um efeito bastante positivo nas deliberações em Moscou, segundo a maioria dos relatos, dando a Gorbachev munição significativa para combater seus radicais no Congresso do Partido que estava ocorrendo naquele momento. Algumas versões dessa história afirmam que uma cópia antecipada foi fornecida aos assessores de Shevardnadze, enquanto outras descrevem apenas um alerta que permitiu que esses assessores pegassem a cópia do serviço de notícias e produzissem uma avaliação positiva soviética antes que os militares ou linha-dura pudessem chamá-lo de propaganda.
Como Kohl disse a Gorbachev em Moscou em 15 de julho de 1990, enquanto eles elaboravam o acordo final sobre a unificação alemã: Declaração de Londres da OTAN. (Ver Documento 23)
Em seu telefonema para Gorbachev em 17 de julho, Bush pretendia reforçar o sucesso das conversações de Kohl-Gorbachev e a mensagem da Declaração de Londres. Bush explicou: “Então, o que tentamos fazer foi levar em conta suas preocupações expressas a mim e a outros, e o fizemos das seguintes maneiras: por nossa declaração conjunta de não agressão; em nosso convite para você vir para a OTAN; no nosso acordo de abrir a OTAN a contactos diplomáticos regulares com o vosso governo e os dos países da Europa de Leste; e nossa oferta de garantias sobre o tamanho futuro das forças armadas de uma Alemanha unida – uma questão que sei que você discutiu com Helmut Kohl. Também mudamos fundamentalmente nossa abordagem militar nas forças convencionais e nucleares. Transmitimos a ideia de uma CSCE ampliada e mais forte com novas instituições nas quais a URSS pode compartilhar e fazer parte da nova Europa.
Os documentos mostram que Gorbachev concordou com a unificação alemã na OTAN como resultado dessa cascata de garantias, e com base em sua própria análise de que o futuro da União Soviética dependia de sua integração na Europa, para a qual a Alemanha seria o ator decisivo . Ele e a maioria de seus aliados acreditavam que alguma versão do lar comum europeu ainda era possível e que se desenvolveria paralelamente à transformação da OTAN para levar a um espaço europeu mais inclusivo e integrado, que o acordo pós-Guerra Fria levaria em conta a política soviética. interesses de segurança. A aliança com a Alemanha não apenas superaria a Guerra Fria, mas também viraria de cabeça para baixo o legado da Grande Guerra Patriótica.
Mas dentro do governo dos EUA continuou uma discussão diferente, um debate sobre as relações entre a OTAN e o Leste Europeu. As opiniões divergem, mas a sugestão do Departamento de Defesa em 25 de outubro de 1990 era deixar “a porta entreaberta” para a adesão do Leste Europeu à OTAN. (Ver Documento 27) A visão do Departamento de Estado era que a expansão da OTAN não estava na agenda, porque não era do interesse dos EUA organizar “uma coalizão anti-soviética” que se estendesse até as fronteiras soviéticas, até porque pode reverter as tendências positivas na União Soviética. (Ver Documento 26) A administração Bush adotou a última opinião. E foi isso que os soviéticos ouviram.
Ainda em março de 1991, de acordo com o diário do embaixador britânico em Moscou, o primeiro-ministro britânico John Major assegurou pessoalmente a Gorbachev: “Não estamos falando sobre o fortalecimento da OTAN”. Posteriormente, quando o ministro da Defesa soviético, marechal Dmitri Yazov, perguntou a Major sobre o interesse dos líderes do Leste Europeu na adesão à OTAN, o líder britânico respondeu: “Nada do tipo acontecerá”. (Ver Documento 28)
Quando os deputados russos da União Soviética chegaram a Bruxelas para ver a OTAN e se reunir com o secretário-geral da OTAN, Manfred Woerner, em julho de 1991, Woerner disse aos russos que “não devemos permitir […] o isolamento da URSS da comunidade europeia”. De acordo com o memorando de conversa russo, “Woerner sublinhou que o Conselho da OTAN e ele são contra a expansão da OTAN (13 dos 16 membros da OTAN apoiam este ponto de vista)”. (Ver Documento 30)
Assim, Gorbachev foi ao fim da União Soviética assegurado de que o Ocidente não estava ameaçando sua segurança e não estava expandindo a OTAN. Em vez disso, a dissolução da URSS foi provocada pelos russos (Boris Yeltsin e seu principal assessor Gennady Burbulis) em conjunto com os ex-chefes do partido das repúblicas soviéticas, especialmente da Ucrânia, em dezembro de 1991. A Guerra Fria já havia terminado há muito tempo. Os americanos tentaram manter a União Soviética unida (veja o discurso de Bush “Chicken Kiev” em 1º de agosto de 1991). A expansão da OTAN ocorreria anos no futuro, quando essas disputas surgiriam novamente e mais garantias chegariam ao líder russo Boris Yeltsin.
O Arquivo compilou esses documentos desclassificados para um painel de discussão em 10 de novembro de 2017 na conferência anual da Association for Slavic, East European and Eurasian Studies (ASEEES) em Chicago sob o título “Quem prometeu o quê a quem na expansão da OTAN?” O painel incluiu:
* Mark Kramer, do Davis Center em Harvard, editor do Journal of Cold War Studies , cujo artigo de 2009 no Washington Quarterly argumentou que o “compromisso de não ampliação da OTAN” era um “mito”; 
* Joshua R. Itkowitz Shifrinson, da Bush School da Texas A&M, cujo artigo de Segurança Internacional de 2016 argumentou que os EUA estavam jogando um jogo duplo em 1990, levando Gorbachev a acreditar que a OTAN seria incluída em uma nova estrutura de segurança europeia, enquanto trabalhava para garantir a hegemonia na Europa e a manutenção da OTAN; 
* James Goldgeier, da American University, que escreveu o livro oficial sobre a decisão de Clinton sobre a expansão da OTAN, Not If But When , e descreveu as garantias enganosas dos EUA ao líder russo Boris Yeltsin em um artigo do WarOnTheRocks de 2016 ; 
* Svetlana Savranskaya e Tom Blanton do Arquivo de Segurança Nacional, cujo livro mais recente, The Last Superpower Summits: Gorbachev, Reagan, and Bush: Conversations That Ended the Cold War (CEU Press, 2016) analisa e publica as transcrições desclassificadas e documentos relacionados de todas as cúpulas de Gorbachev com presidentes dos EUA, incluindo dezenas de garantias sobre a proteção dos interesses de segurança da URSS. 
[A postagem de hoje é a primeira de duas sobre o assunto. A segunda parte cobrirá as discussões de Yeltsin com líderes ocidentais sobre a OTAN.]
Leia os documentos
1º de fevereiro de 1990
Departamento de Estado dos E.U.A. Sala de Leitura FOIA. Caso F-2015 10829
Um dos mitos sobre as discussões de janeiro e fevereiro de 1990 sobre a unificação alemã é que essas conversas ocorreram tão cedo no processo, com o Pacto de Varsóvia ainda muito em vigor, que ninguém estava pensando na possibilidade de que países centrais e europeus, mesmo então membros do Pacto de Varsóvia, poderiam no futuro tornar-se membros da OTAN. Ao contrário, a fórmula de Tutzing do ministro das Relações Exteriores da Alemanha Ocidental em seu discurso de 31 de janeiro de 1990, amplamente divulgado na mídia na Europa, Washington e Moscou, abordou explicitamente a possibilidade de expansão da OTAN, bem como a adesão da Europa Central e Oriental em OTAN – e negou essa possibilidade, como parte de sua guirlanda de oliveiras em direção a Moscou. Este EUA
6 de fevereiro de 1990
Documentos sobre a Política Britânica no Exterior, série III, volume VII: Unificação Alemã, 1989-1990. (Foreign and Commonwealth Office. Documents on British Policy Overseas, editado por Patrick Salmon, Keith Hamilton e Stephen Twigge, Oxford e Nova York, Routledge 2010). págs. 261-264
A visão subsequente do Departamento de Estado dos EUA sobre as negociações de unificação alemã, expressa em um telegrama de 1996 enviado a todos os postos, afirma erroneamente que toda a negociação sobre o futuro da Alemanha limitou sua discussão sobre o futuro da OTAN aos arranjos específicos sobre o território da ex-RDA. Talvez os diplomatas americanos tenham perdido o diálogo inicial entre os britânicos e os alemães sobre essa questão, embora ambos compartilhassem suas opiniões com o secretário de Estado dos EUA. Conforme publicado na história documental oficial de 2010 do Ministério das Relações Exteriores e da Commonwealth britânica sobre a contribuição do Reino Unido para a unificação alemã, este memorando da conversa do ministro das Relações Exteriores britânico Douglas Hurd com o ministro das Relações Exteriores da Alemanha Ocidental Genscher em 6 de fevereiro de 1990, contém alguma especificidade notável sobre a questão da futura adesão à OTAN para os europeus centrais. O memorando britânico cita especificamente Genscher dizendo “que quando ele falou sobre não querer estender a OTAN que se aplicava a outros estados além da RDA. Os russos devem ter alguma garantia de que se, por exemplo, o governo polonês deixasse o Pacto de Varsóvia um dia, eles não ingressariam na OTAN no dia seguinte”. Genscher e Hurd estavam dizendo o mesmo para seu colega soviético Eduard Shevardnadze e para James Baker.
6 de fevereiro de 1990
Biblioteca Presidencial George HW Bush
Esta nota concisa ao presidente Bush de um dos arquitetos da Guerra Fria, Paul Nitze (baseado em seu homônimo Johns Hopkins University School of International Studies), captura o debate sobre o futuro da OTAN no início de 1990. Nitze relata que os líderes da Europa Central e Oriental participantes da conferência “Fórum para a Alemanha” em Berlim defendiam a dissolução de ambos os blocos de superpotências, a OTAN e o Pacto de Varsóvia, até que ele (e alguns europeus ocidentais) inverteu essa visão e, em vez disso, enfatizou a importância da OTAN como base da estabilidade e presença dos EUA na Europa.
9 de fevereiro de 1990
Departamento de Estado dos EUA, FOIA 199504567 (Coleção de Flashpoints do Arquivo de Segurança Nacional, Caixa 38)
Embora fortemente redigida em comparação com os relatos soviéticos dessas conversas, a versão oficial do Departamento de Estado das garantias do secretário Baker ao ministro das Relações Exteriores soviético Shevardnadze, pouco antes da reunião formal com Gorbachev em 9 de fevereiro de 1990, contém uma série de frases reveladoras. Baker propõe a fórmula Dois-Mais-Quatro, sendo as duas as Alemanhas e as quatro as potências ocupantes do pós-guerra; argumenta contra outras formas de negociar a unificação; e defende a ancoragem da Alemanha na OTAN. Além disso, Baker diz ao ministro das Relações Exteriores soviético: “Uma Alemanha neutra, sem dúvida, adquiriria sua própria capacidade nuclear independente. No entanto, uma Alemanha que está firmemente ancorada em uma OTAN alterada, com isso quero dizer uma OTAN que é muito menos [uma] organização militar, muito mais política, não teria necessidade de capacidade independente. É claro que teria de haver garantias férreas de que a jurisdição ou as forças da OTAN não se moveriam para o leste. E isso teria que ser feito de uma maneira que satisfizesse os vizinhos da Alemanha a leste.”
9 de fevereiro de 1990
Departamento de Estado dos EUA, FOIA 199504567 (Coleção de Flashpoints do Arquivo de Segurança Nacional, Caixa 38)
Mesmo com as redações (injustificadas) dos oficiais de classificação dos EUA, esta transcrição americana da talvez mais famosa garantia dos EUA aos soviéticos sobre a expansão da OTAN confirma a transcrição soviética da mesma conversa. Repetindo o que Bush disse na cúpula de Malta em dezembro de 1989, Baker diz a Gorbachev: “O presidente e eu deixamos claro que não buscamos nenhuma vantagem unilateral neste processo” da inevitável unificação alemã. Baker continua dizendo: “Entendemos a necessidade de garantias para os países do Leste. Se mantivermos uma presença em uma Alemanha que faz parte da OTAN, não haverá extensão da jurisdição da OTAN para as forças da OTAN uma polegada a leste.” Mais tarde na conversa, Baker coloca a mesma posição como uma pergunta, “você preferiria uma Alemanha unida fora da OTAN que seja independente e não tenha forças dos EUA ou você preferiria uma Alemanha unida com laços com a OTAN e garantias de que não haveria extensão da atual jurisdição da OTAN para o leste?” Os desclassificadores desse memcon na verdade redigiram a resposta de Gorbachev de que tal expansão seria “inaceitável” – mas a carta de Baker para Kohl no dia seguinte, publicada em 1998 pelos alemães, dá a citação.
9 de fevereiro de 1990
Arquivo da Fundação Gorbachev, Fond 1, Opis 1.
Este registro da Fundação Gorbachev da reunião do líder soviético com James Baker em 9 de fevereiro de 1990 é público e disponível para pesquisadores da Fundação desde 1996, mas não foi publicado em inglês até 2010, quando o volume Masterpieces of History de os presentes autores saíram da Central European University Press. O documento se concentra na unificação alemã, mas também inclui uma discussão franca de Gorbachev sobre os problemas econômicos e políticos na União Soviética, e o “conselho gratuito” de Baker (“às vezes o ministro das finanças em mim acorda”) sobre preços, inflação e até a política de venda de apartamentos para absorver os rublos que os cautelosos cidadãos soviéticos enfiaram debaixo dos colchões.
Voltando-se para a unificação alemã, Baker garante a Gorbachev que “nem o presidente nem eu pretendemos extrair vantagens unilaterais dos processos que estão ocorrendo”, e que os americanos entendem a importância para a URSS e a Europa de garantias de que “nem um centímetro de A atual jurisdição militar da OTAN se espalhará na direção leste”. Baker defende as conversações Dois-Mais-Quatro usando a mesma garantia: “Acreditamos que as consultas e discussões no âmbito do mecanismo ‘dois+quatro’ devem garantir que a unificação da Alemanha não levará a organização militar da OTAN a se espalhar para o leste.” Gorbachev responde citando o presidente polonês Wojciech Jaruzelski: “que a presença de tropas americanas e soviéticas na Europa é um elemento de estabilidade”.
A troca-chave ocorre quando Baker pergunta se Gorbachev preferiria “uma Alemanha unida fora da OTAN, absolutamente independente e sem tropas americanas; ou uma Alemanha unida mantendo suas conexões com a OTAN, mas com a garantia de que a jurisdição ou as tropas da OTAN não se espalharão a leste da atual fronteira”. Assim, nesta conversa, o secretário de Estado dos EUA oferece três vezes garantias de que se a Alemanha pudesse se unificar na OTAN, preservando a presença dos EUA na Europa, a OTAN não se expandiria para o leste. Curiosamente, nem uma vez ele usa o termo RDA ou Alemanha Oriental ou sequer menciona as tropas soviéticas na Alemanha Oriental. Para um negociador habilidoso e advogado cuidadoso, parece muito improvável que Baker não usasse uma terminologia específica se na verdade estivesse se referindo apenas à Alemanha Oriental.
O líder soviético responde que “vamos pensar em tudo. Pretendemos discutir todas essas questões em profundidade no nível de liderança. Escusado será dizer que um alargamento da zona da OTAN não é aceitável.” Baker afirma: “Nós concordamos com isso”.
9 de fevereiro de 1990
Biblioteca Presidencial George HW Bush, Arquivos NSC Scowcroft, Caixa 91128, Pasta “Gorbachev (Dobrynin) Sensitive”.
Essa conversa é especialmente importante porque pesquisadores posteriores especularam que o secretário Baker pode estar falando além de seu briefing em sua conversa “nem uma polegada para o leste” com Gorbachev. Robert Gates, o ex-analista de inteligência da CIA e especialista na URSS, aqui conta a seu semelhante, o chefe da KGB, em seu escritório na sede da KGB em Lubyanka, exatamente o que Baker disse a Gorbachev naquele dia no Kremlin : nem uma polegada para leste. Àquela altura, Gates era o principal vice do conselheiro de segurança nacional do presidente, general Brent Scowcroft, então este documento fala de uma abordagem coordenada do governo dos EUA a Gorbachev. Kryuchkov, a quem Gorbachev nomeou para substituir Viktor Chebrikov na KGB em outubro de 1988, aparece aqui como surpreendentemente progressista em muitas questões de reforma doméstica.
Quando a discussão passa para a política externa, em particular a questão alemã, Gates pergunta: “O que Kryuchkov achou da proposta Kohl/Genscher sob a qual uma Alemanha unida seria associada à OTAN, mas na qual as tropas da OTAN não se moveriam mais para o leste? do que eram agora? Parece-nos uma boa proposta.” Kryuchkov não dá uma resposta direta, mas fala sobre como a questão da unificação alemã é sensível para o público soviético e sugere que os alemães ofereçam algumas garantias à União Soviética. Ele diz que embora as ideias de Kohl e Genscher sejam interessantes, “mesmo aqueles pontos de suas propostas com os quais concordamos teriam que ter garantias. Aprendemos com os americanos nas negociações de controle de armas a importância da verificação, e teríamos que ter certeza.”
10 de fevereiro de 1990
Deutsche Enheit Sonderedition und den Akten des Budeskanzleramtes 1989/90, eds. Hanns Jurgen Kusters and Daniel Hofmann (Munich: R. Odenbourg Verlag, 1998), pp. 793-794
This key document first appeared in Helmut Kohl’s scholarly edition of chancellery documents on German unification, published in 1998. Kohl at that moment was caught up in an election campaign that would end his 16-year tenure as chancellor, and wanted to remind Germans of his instrumental role in the triumph of unification. The large volume (over 1,000 pages) included German texts of Kohl’s meetings with Gorbachev, Bush, Mitterrand, Thatcher and more – all published with no apparent consultation with those governments, only eight years after the events. A few of the Kohl documents, such as this one, appear in English, representing the American or British originals rather than German notes or translations. Here, Baker debriefs Kohl the day after his February 9 meeting with Gorbachev. (The chancellor is scheduled to have his own session with Gorbachev on February 10 in Moscow.) The American apprises the German on Soviet “concerns” about unification, and summarizes why a “Two Plus Four” negotiation would be the most appropriate venue for talks on the “external aspects of unification” given that the “internal aspects … were strictly a German matter.” Baker especially remarks on Gorbachev’s noncommittal response to the question about a neutral Germany versus a NATO Germany with pledges against eastward expansion, and advises Kohl that Gorbachev “may well be willing to go along with a sensible approach that gives him some cover …” Kohl reinforces this message in his own conversation later that day with the Soviet leader.
Feb 10, 1990
Mikhail Gorbachev i germanskii vopros, edited by Alexander Galkin and Anatoly Chernyaev, (Moscow: Ves Mir, 2006)
This meeting in Moscow was the moment, by Kohl’s account, when he first heard from Gorbachev that the Soviet leader saw German unification as inevitable, that the value of future German friendship in a “common European home” outweighed Cold War rigidities, but that the Soviets would need time (and money) before they could acknowledge the new realities. Prepared by Baker’s letter and his own foreign minister’s Tutzing formula, Kohl early in the conversation assures Gorbachev, “We believe that NATO should not expand the sphere of its activity. We have to find a reasonable resolution. I correctly understand the security interests of the Soviet Union, and I realize that you, Mr. General Secretary, and the Soviet leadership will have to clearly explain what is happening to the Soviet people.” Later the two leaders tussle about NATO and the Warsaw Pact, with Gorbachev commenting, “They say what is NATO without the FRG. But we could also ask: what is the WTO without the GDR?” When Kohl disagrees, Gorbachev calls merely for “reasonable solutions that do not poison the atmosphere in our relations” and says this part of the conversation should not be made public.
Gorbachev aide Andrei Grachev later wrote that the Soviet leader early on understood that Germany was the door to European integration, and “[a]ll the attempted bargaining [by Gorbachev] about the final formula for German association with NATO was therefore much more a question of form than serious content; Gorbachev was trying to gain needed time in order to let public opinion at home adjust to the new reality, to the new type of relations that were taking shape in the Soviet Union’s relations with Germany as well as with the West in general. At the same time he was hoping to get at least partial political compensation from his Western partners for what he believed to be his major contribution to the end of the Cold War.”
Feb 12, 1990
Hoover Institution Archive, Stepanov-Mamaladze Collection.
Soviet Foreign Minister Shevardnadze was particularly unhappy with the swift pace of events on German unification, especially when a previously scheduled NATO and Warsaw Pact foreign ministers’ meeting in Ottawa, Canada, on February 10-12, 1990, that was meant to discuss the “Open Skies” treaty, turned into a wide-ranging negotiation over Germany and the installation of the Two-Plus-Four process to work out the details. Shevardnadze’s aide, Teimuraz Stepanov-Mamaladze, wrote notes of the Ottawa meetings in a series of notebooks, and also kept a less-telegraphic diary, which needs to be read along with the notebooks for the most complete account. Now deposited at the Hoover Institution, these excerpts of the Stepanov-Mamaladze notes and diary record Shevardnadze’s disapproval of the speed of the process, but most importantly reinforce the importance of the February 9 and 10 meetings in Moscow, where Western assurances about Soviet security were heard, and Gorbachev’s assent in principle to eventual German unification came as part of the deal.
Notes from the first days of the conference are very brief, but they contain one important line that shows that Baker offered the same assurance formula in Ottawa as he did in Moscow: “And if U[nited] G[ermany] stays in NATO, we should take care about nonexpansion of its jurisdiction to the East.” Shevardnadze is not ready to discuss conditions for German unification; he says that he has to consult with Moscow before any condition is approved. On February 13, according to the notes, Shevardnadze complains, “I am in a stupid situation – we are discussing the Open Skies, but my colleagues are talking about unification of Germany as if it was a fact.” The notes show that Baker was very persistent in trying to get Shevardnadze to define Soviet conditions for German unification in NATO, while Shevardnadze was still uncomfortable with the term “unification,” instead insisting on the more general term “unity.”
Feb 12, 1990
Hoover Institution Archive, Stepanov-Mamaladze Collection.
This diary entry from February 12 contains a very brief description of the February 10 Kohl and Genscher visit to Moscow, about which Stepanov-Mamaladze had not previously written (since he was not present). Sharing the view of his minister, Shevardnadze, Stepanov reflects on the hurried nature of, and insufficient considerations given to, the Moscow discussions: “Before our visit here, Kohl and Genscher paid a hasty visit to Moscow. And just as hastily – in the opinion of E.A. [Shevardnadze] – Gorbachev accepted the right of the Germans to unity and self-determination.” This diary entry is evidence, from a critical perspective, that the United States and West Germany did give Moscow concrete assurances about keeping NATO to its current size and scope. In fact, the diary further indicates that at least in Shevardnadze’s view those assurances amounted to a deal – which Gorbachev accepted, even while he stalled for time.
Feb 13, 1990
Hoover Institution Archive, Stepanov-Mamaladze Collection.
On the second day of the Ottawa conference, Stepanov-Mamaladze describes difficult negotiations about the exact wording on the joint statement on Germany and the Two-Plus-Four process. Shevardnadze and Genscher argued for two hours over the terms “unity” versus “unification” as Shevardnadze tried to slow things down on Germany and get the other ministers to concentrate on Open Skies. The day was quite intense: “During the day, active games were taking place between all of them. E.A. [Shevardnadze] met with Baker five times, twice with Genscher, talked with Fischer [GDR foreign minister], Dumas [French foreign minister], and the ministers of the ATS countries,” and finally, the text of the settlement was settled, using the word “unity.” The final statement also called the agreement on U.S. and Soviet troops in Central Europe the main achievement of the conference. But for the Soviet delegates, “ the ‘Open Sky’ [was] still closed by the storm cloud of Germany.”
Feb 21, 1990
State Department FOIA release, National Security Archive Flashpoints Collection, Box 38.
This memo, likely authored by top Baker aide Robert Zoellick at the State Department, contains the candid American view of the Two-Plus-Four process with its advantages of “maintain[ing] American involvement in (and even some control over) the unification debate.” The American fear was that the West Germans would make their own deal with Moscow for rapid unification, giving up some of the bottom lines for the U.S., mainly membership in NATO. Zoellick points out, for example, that Kohl had announced his 10 Points without consulting Washington and after signals from Moscow, and that the U.S. had found out about Kohl going to Moscow from the Soviets, not from Kohl. The memo pre-empts objections about including the Soviets by pointing out they were already in Germany and had to be dealt with. The Two-Plus-Four arrangement includes the Soviets but prevents them from having a veto (which a Four-Power process or a United Nations process might allow), while an effective One-Plus-Three conversation before each meeting would enable West Germany and the U.S., with the British and the French, to work out a common position. Especially telling are the underlining and handwriting by Baker in the margins, especially his exuberant phrase, “you haven’t seen a leveraged buyout until you see this one!”
Feb 20, 1990
George H.W. Bush Presidential Library, Memcons and Telcons (https://bush41library.tamu.edu/)
These conversations might be called “the education of Vaclav Havel,” as the former dissident-turned-president of Czechoslovakia visited Washington only two months after the Velvet Revolution swept him from prison to the Prague Castle. Havel would enjoy standing ovations during a February 21 speech to a joint session of Congress, and hold talks with Bush before and after the congressional appearance. Havel had already been cited by journalists as calling for the dissolution of the Cold War blocs, both NATO and the Warsaw Pact, and the withdrawal of troops, so Bush took the opportunity to lecture the Czech leader about the value of NATO and its essential role as the basis for the U.S. presence in Europe. Still, Havel twice mentioned in his speech to Congress his hope that “American soldiers shouldn’t have to be separated from their mothers” just because Europe couldn’t keep the peace, and appealed for a “future democratic Germany in the process of unifying itself into a new pan-European structure which could decide about its own security system.” But afterwards, talking again to Bush, the former dissident clearly had gotten the message. Havel said he might have been misunderstood, that he certainly saw the value of U.S. engagement in Europe. For his part, Bush raised the possibilities, assuming more Czechoslovak cooperation on this issue, of U.S. investment and aid.
Feb 21, 1990
George H.W. Bush Presidential Library, Memcons and Telcons (https://bush41library.tamu.edu/)
This memcon after Havel’s triumphant speech to Congress contains Bush’s request to Havel to pass the message to Gorbachev that the Americans support him personally, and that “We will not conduct ourselves in the wrong way by saying ‘we win, you lose.’” Emphasizing the point, Bush says, “tell Gorbachev that … I asked you to tell Gorbachev that we will not conduct ourselves regarding Czechoslovakia or any other country in a way that would complicate the problems he has so frankly discussed with me.” The Czechoslovak leader adds his own caution to the Americans about how to proceed with the unification of Germany and address Soviet insecurities. Havel remarks to Bush, “It is a question of prestige. This is the reason why I talked about the new European security system without mentioning NATO. Because, if it grew out of NATO, it would have to be named something else, if only because of the element of prestige. If NATO takes over Germany, it will look like defeat, one superpower conquering another. But if NATO can transform itself – perhaps in conjunction with the Helsinki process – it would look like a peaceful process of change, not defeat.” Bush responded positively: “You raised a good point. Our view is that NATO would continue with a new political role and that we would build on the CSCE process. We will give thought on how we might proceed.”
Feb 24, 1990
George H.W. Bush Presidential Library, Memcons and Telcons (https://bush41library.tamu.edu/)
The Bush administration’s main worry about German unification as the process accelerated in February 1990 was that the West Germans might make their own deal bilaterally with the Soviets (see Document 11) and might be willing to bargain away NATO membership. President Bush later commented that the purpose of the Camp David meeting with Kohl was to “keep Germany on the NATO reservation,” and that drove the agenda for this set of meetings. The German chancellor arrives at Camp David without Genscher because the latter does not entirely share the Bush-Kohl position on full German membership in NATO, and he recently angered both leaders by speaking publicly about the CSCE as the future European security mechanism.
At the beginning of this conversation, Kohl expresses gratitude for Bush and Baker’s support during his discussions with Gorbachev in Moscow in early February, especially for Bush’s letter stating Washington’s strong commitment to German unification in NATO. Both leaders express the need for the closest cooperation between them in order to reach the desired outcome. Bush’s priority is to keep the U.S. presence, especially the nuclear umbrella, in Europe: “if U.S. nuclear forces are withdrawn from Germany, I don’t see how we can persuade any other ally on the continent to retain these weapons.” He refers sarcastically to criticisms coming from Capitol Hill: “We have weird thinking in our Congress today, ideas like this peace dividend. We can’t do that in these uncertain times.” Both leaders are concerned about the position Gorbachev might take and agree on the need to consult with him regularly. Kohl suggests that the Soviets need assistance and the final arrangement on Germany could be a “matter of cash.” Foreshadowing his reluctance to contribute financially, Bush replies, “you have deep pockets.” At one point in the conversation, Bush seems to view his Soviet counterpart not as a partner but as a defeated enemy. Referring to talk in some Soviet quarters against Germany staying in NATO, he says: “To hell with that. We prevailed and they didn’t. We cannot let the Soviets clutch victory from the jaws of defeat.”
Apr 6, 1990
George H.W. Bush Presidential Library, Memcons and Telcons (https://bush41library.tamu.edu/)
Foreign Minister Shevardnadze delivers a letter to Bush from Gorbachev, in which the Soviet president reviews the main issues before the coming summit. Economic issues are at the top of the list for the Soviet Union, specifically Most Favored Nation status and a trade agreement with the United States. Shevardnadze expresses concern about the lack of progress on these issues and the U.S. efforts to prevent the EBRD from extending loans to the USSR. He stresses that they are not asking for help, “we are only looking to be treated as partners.” Addressing the tensions in Lithuania, Bush says that he does not want to create difficulties for Gorbachev on domestic issues, but notes that he must insist on the rights of Lithuanians because their incorporation within the USSR was never recognized by the United States. On arms control, both sides point to some backtracking by the other and express a desire to finalize the START Treaty quickly. Shevardnadze mentions the upcoming CSCE summit and the Soviet expectation that it will discuss the new European security structures. Bush does not contradict this but ties it to the issues of the U.S. presence in Europe and German unification in NATO. He declares that he wants to “contribute to stability and to the creation of a Europe whole and free, or as you call it, a common European home. A[n] idea that is very close to our own.” The Soviets—wrongly—interpret this as a declaration that the U.S. administration shares Gorbachev’s idea.
Apr 11, 1990
Documents on British Policy Overseas, series III, volume VII: German Unification, 1989-1990. (Foreign and Commonwealth Office. Documents on British Policy Overseas, edited by Patrick Salmon, Keith Hamilton, and Stephen Twigge, Oxford and New York, Routledge 2010), pp. 373-375
Ambassador Braithwaite’s telegram summarizes the meeting between Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs Douglas Hurd and President Gorbachev, noting Gorbachev’s “expansive mood.” Gorbachev asks the secretary to pass his appreciation for Margaret Thatcher’s letter to him after her summit with Kohl, at which, according to Gorbachev, she followed the lines of policy Gorbachev and Thatcher discussed in their recent phone call, on the basis of which the Soviet leader concluded that “the British and Soviet positions were very close indeed.” Hurd cautions Gorbachev that their positions are not 100% in agreement, but that the British “recognized the importance of doing nothing to prejudice Soviet interests and dignity.” Gorbachev, as reflected in Braithwaite’s summary, speaks about the importance of building new security structures as a way of dealing with the issue of two Germanies: “If we are talking about a common dialogue about a new Europe stretching from the Atlantic to the Urals, that was one way of dealing with the German issue.” That would require a transitional period to pick up the pace of the European process and “synchronise it with finding a solution to the problem of the two Germanies.” However, if the process was unilateral – only Germany in NATO and no regard for Soviet security interest – the Supreme Soviet would be very unlikely to approve such a solution and the Soviet Union would question the need to speed up the reduction of its conventional weapons in Europe. In his view, Germany’s joining NATO without progress on European security structures “could upset the balance of security, which would be unacceptable to the Soviet Union.”
Apr 18, 1990
Mikhail Gorbachev i germanskii vopros, edited by Alexander Galkin and Anatoly Chernyaev, (Moscow: Ves Mir, 2006), pp. 398-408
This memorandum from the Central Committee’s most senior expert on Germany sounds like a wake-up call for Gorbachev. Falin puts it in blunt terms: while Soviet European policy has fallen into inactivity and even “depression” after the March 18 elections in East Germany, and Gorbachev himself has let Kohl speed up the process of unification, his compromises on Germany in NATO can only lead to the slipping away of his main goal for Europe – the common European home. “Summing up the past six months, one has to conclude that the ‘common European home,’ which used to be a concrete task the countries of the continent were starting to implement, is now turning into a mirage.” While the West is sweet-talking Gorbachev into accepting German unification in NATO, Falin notes (correctly) that “the Western states are already violating the consensus principle by making preliminary agreements among themselves” regarding German unification and the future of Europe that do not include a “long phase of constructive development.” He notes the West’s “intensive cultivation of not only NATO but also our Warsaw Pact allies” with the goal to isolate the USSR in the Two-Plus-Four and CSCE framework.
He further comments that reasonable voices are no longer heard: “Genscher from time to time continues to discuss accelerating the movement toward European collective security with the ‘dissolving of NATO and WTO into it.’ … But very few people … hear Genscher.” Falin proposes using the Soviet Four-power rights to achieve a formal legally binding settlement equal to a peace treaty that would guarantee Soviet security interests as “our only chance to dock German unification with the pan-European process.” He also suggests using arms control negotiations in Vienna and Geneva as leverage if the West keeps taking advantage of Soviet flexibility. The memo suggests specific provisions for the final settlement with Germany, the negotiation of which would take a long time and provide a window for building European structures. But the main idea of the memo is to warn Gorbachev not to be naive about the intentions of his American partners: “The West is outplaying us, promising to respect the interests of the USSR, but in practice, step by step, separating us from ‘traditional Europe.’”
May 4, 1990
George H. W. Bush Presidential Library, NSC Scowcroft Files, Box 91126, Folder “Gorbachev (Dobrynin) Sensitive 1989 – June 1990 ”
The secretary of state had just spent nearly four hours meeting with the Soviet foreign minister in Bonn on May 4, 1990, covering a range of issues but centering on the crisis in Lithuania and the negotiations over German unification. As in the February talks and throughout the year, Baker took pains to provide assurances to the Soviets about including them in the future of Europe. Baker reports, “I also used your speech and our recognition of the need to adapt NATO, politically and militarily, and to develop CSCE to reassure Shevardnadze that the process would not yield winners and losers. Instead, it would produce a new legitimate European structure – one that would be inclusive, not exclusive.” Shevardnadze’s response indicates that “our discussion of the new European architecture was compatible with much of their thinking, though their thinking was still being developed.” Baker relates that Shevardnadze “emphasized again the psychological difficulty they have – especially the Soviet public has – of accepting a unified Germany in NATO.” Astutely, Baker predicts that Gorbachev will not “take on this kind of an emotionally charged political issue now” and likely not until after the Party Congress in July.
May 18, 1990
Gorbachev Foundation Archive, Fond 1, Opis 1.
This fascinating conversation covers a range of arms control issues in preparation for the Washington summit and includes extensive though inconclusive discussions of German unification and the tensions in the Baltics, particularly the standoff between Moscow and secessionist Lithuania. Gorbachev makes an impassioned attempt to persuade Baker that Germany should reunify outside of the main military blocs, in the context of the all-European process. Baker provides Gorbachev with nine points of assurance to prove that his position is being taken into account. Point eight is the most important for Gorbachev—that the United States is “making an effort in various forums to ultimately transform the CSCE into a permanent institution that would become an important cornerstone of a new Europe.”
This assurance notwithstanding, when Gorbachev mentions the need to build new security structures to replace the blocs, Baker lets slip a personal reaction that reveals much about the real U.S. position on the subject: “It’s nice to talk about pan-European security structures, the role of the CSCE. It is a wonderful dream, but just a dream. In the meantime, NATO exists. …” Gorbachev suggests that if the U.S. side insists on Germany in NATO, then he would “announce publicly that we want to join NATO too.” Shevardnadze goes further, offering a prophetic observation: “if united Germany becomes a member of NATO, it will blow up perestroika. Our people will not forgive us. People will say that we ended up the losers, not the winners.”
May 25, 1990
Mikhail Gorbachev i germanskii vopros, edited by Alexander Galkin and Anatoly Chernyaev, (Moscow: Ves Mir, 2006), pp. 454-466
Gorbachev felt that of all the Europeans, the French president was his closest ally in the construction of a post-Cold War Europe, because the Soviet leader believed Mitterrand shared his concept of the common European home and the idea of dissolving both military blocs in favor of new European security structures. And Mitterrand did share that view, to an extent. In this conversation, Gorbachev is still hoping to persuade his counterpart to join him in opposing German unification in NATO. Mitterrand is quite direct, telling Gorbachev that it is too late to fight this issue and that he would not give his support, because “if I say ‘no’ to Germany’s membership in NATO, I will become isolated from my Western partners.” However, Mitterrand suggests that Gorbachev demand “appropriate guarantees” from NATO. He speaks about the danger of isolating the Soviet Union in the new Europe and the need to “create security conditions for you, as well as European security as a whole. This was one of my guiding goals, particularly when I proposed my idea of creating a European confederation. It is similar to your concept of a common European home.”
In his recommendations to Gorbachev, Mitterrand is basically repeating the lines of the Falin memo (see Document 16). He says Gorbachev should strive for a formal settlement with Germany using his Four-power rights and use the leverage of conventions arms control negotiations: “You will not abandon such a trump card as disarmament negotiations.” He implies that NATO is not the key issue now and could be drowned out in further negotiations; rather, the important thing is to ensure Soviet participation in new European security system. He repeats that he is “personally in favor of gradually dismantling the military blocs.”
Gorbachev expresses his wariness and suspicion about U.S. effort to “perpetuate NATO,” to “use NATO to create some sort of mechanism, an institution, a kind of directory for managing world affairs.” He tells Mitterrand about his concern that the U.S. is trying to attract East Europeans to NATO: “I told Baker: we are aware of your favorable attitude towards the intention expressed by a number of representatives of Eastern European countries to withdraw from the Warsaw Pact and subsequently join NATO.” What about the USSR joining?
Mitterrand agrees to support Gorbachev in his efforts to encourage pan-European processes and ensure that Soviet security interests are taken into account as long as he does not have to say “no” to the Germans. He says “I always told my NATO partners: make a commitment not to move NATO’s military formations from their current territory in the FRG to East Germany.”
May 25, 1990
George H.W. Bush Presidential Library, NSC Scowcroft Files, FOIA 2009-0275-S
True to his word, Mitterrand writes a letter to George Bush describing Gorbachev’s predicament on the issue of German unification in NATO, calling it genuine, not “fake or tactical.” He warns the American president against doing it as a fait accompli without Gorbachev’s consent implying that Gorbachev might retaliate on arms control (exactly what Mitterrand himself – and Falin earlier – suggested in his conversation). Mitterrand argues in favor of a formal “peace settlement in International law,” and informs Bush that in his conversation with Gorbachev he “indicated that, on the Western side, we would certainly not refuse to detail the guarantees that he would have a right to expect for his country’s security.” Mitterrand thinks that “we must try to dispel Mr. Gorbatchev’s worries,” and offers to present “ a number of proposals” about such guarantees when he and Bush meet in person.
May 31, 1990
Gorbachev Foundation Archive, Moscow, Fond 1, opis 1.
In this famous “two anchor” discussion, the U.S. and Soviet delegations deliberate over the process of German unification and especially the issue of a united Germany joining NATO. Bush tries to persuade his counterpart to reconsider his fears of Germany based on the past, and to encourage him to trust the new democratic Germany. The U.S. president says, “Believe me, we are not pushing Germany towards unification, and it is not us who determines the pace of this process. And of course, we have no intention, even in our thoughts, to harm the Soviet Union in any fashion. That is why we are speaking in favor of German unification in NATO without ignoring the wider context of the CSCE, taking the traditional economic ties between the two German states into consideration. Such a model, in our view, corresponds to the Soviet interests as well.” Baker repeats the nine assurances made previously by the administration, including that the United States now agrees to support the pan-European process and transformation of NATO in order to remove the Soviet perception of threat. Gorbachev’s preferred position is Germany with one foot in both NATO and the Warsaw Pact—the “two anchors”—creating a kind of associated membership. Baker intervenes, saying that “the simultaneous obligations of one and the same country toward the WTO and NATO smack of schizophrenia.” After the U.S. president frames the issue in the context of the Helsinki agreement, Gorbachev proposes that the German people have the right to choose their alliance—which he in essence already affirmed to Kohl during their meeting in February 1990. Here, Gorbachev significantly exceeds his brief, and incurs the ire of other members of his delegation, especially the official with the German portfolio, Valentin Falin, and Marshal Sergey Akhromeyev. Gorbachev issues a key warning about the future: “if the Soviet people get an impression that we are disregarded in the German question, then all the positive processes in Europe, including the negotiations in Vienna [over conventional forces], would be in serious danger. This is not just bluffing. It is simply that the people will force us to stop and to look around.” It is a remarkable admission about domestic political pressures from the last Soviet leader.
Jun 8, 1990
Documents on British Policy Overseas, series III, volume VII: German Unification, 1989-1990. (Foreign and Commonwealth Office. Documents on British Policy Overseas, edited by Patrick Salmon, Keith Hamilton, and Stephen Twigge, Oxford and New York, Routledge 2010), pp 411-417
Margaret Thatcher visits Gorbachev right after he returns home from his summit with George Bush. Among many issues in the conversation, the center of gravity is on German unification and NATO, on which, Powell notes, Gorbachev’s “views were still evolving.” Rather than agreeing on German unification in NATO, Gorbachev talks about the need for NATO and the Warsaw pact to move closer together, from confrontation to cooperation to build a new Europe: “We must mould European structures so that they helped us find the common European home. Neither side must be afraid of unorthodox solutions.”
While Thatcher speaks against Gorbachev’s ideas short of full NATO membership for Germany and emphasizes the importance of a U.S. military presence in Europe, she also sees that “CSCE could provide the umbrella for all this, as well as being the forum which brought the Soviet Union fully into discussion about the future of Europe.” Gorbachev says he wants to “be completely frank with the Prime Minister” that if the processes were to become one-sided, “there could be a very difficult situation [and the] Soviet Union would feel its security in jeopardy.” Thatcher responds firmly that it was in nobody’s interest to put Soviet security in jeopardy: “we must find ways to give the Soviet Union confidence that its security would be assured.”
Jul 15, 1990
Mikhail Gorbachev i germanskii vopros, edited by Alexander Galkin and Anatoly Chernyaev, (Moscow: Ves Mir, 2006), pp. 495-504
This key conversation between Chancellor Kohl and President Gorbachev sets the final parameters for German unification. Kohl talks repeatedly about the new era of relations between a united Germany and the Soviet Union, and how this relationship would contribute to European stability and security. Gorbachev demands assurances on non-expansion of NATO: “we must talk about the nonproliferation of NATO military structures to the territory of the GDR, and maintaining Soviet troops there for a certain transition period.” The Soviet leader notes earlier in the conversation that NATO has already began transforming itself. For him, the pledge of NATO non-expansion to the territory of the GDR in spirit means that NATO would not take advantage of the Soviet willingness to compromise on Germany. He also demands that the status of Soviet troops in the GDR for the transition period be “regulated. It should not hang in the air, it needs a legal basis.” He hands Kohl Soviet considerations for a full-fledged Soviet-German treaty that would include such guarantees. He also wants assistance with relocating the troops and building housing for them. Kohl promises to do so as long as this assistance is not construed as “a program of German assistance to the Soviet Army.”
Talking about the future of Europe, Kohl alludes to NATO transformation: “We know what awaits NATO in the future, and I think you are now in the know as well.” Kohl also emphasizes that President Bush is aware and supportive of Soviet-German agreements and will play a key role in the building of the new Europe. Chernyaev sums up this meeting in his diary for July 15, 1990: “Today – Kohl. They are meeting at the Schechtel mansion on Alexei Tolstoy Street. Gorbachev confirms his agreement to unified Germany’s entry into NATO. Kohl is decisive and assertive. He leads a clean but tough game. And it is not the bait (loans) but the fact that it is pointless to resist here, it would go against the current of events, it would be contrary to the very realities that M.S. likes to refer to so much.”
Jul 17, 1990
George H.W. Bush Presidential Library, Memcons and Telcons ((https://bush41library.tamu.edu/)
President Bush reaches out to Gorbachev immediately after the Kohl-Gorbachev meetings in Moscow and the Caucasus retreat of Arkhyz, which settled German unification, leaving only the financial arrangements for resolution in September. Gorbachev had not only made the deal with Kohl, but he had also survived and triumphed at the 28th Congress of the CPSU in early July, the last in the history of the Soviet Party. Gorbachev describes this time as “perhaps the most difficult and important period in my political life.” The Congress subjected the party leader to scathing criticism from both conservative Communists and the democratic opposition. He managed to defend his program and win reelection as general secretary, but he had very little to show from his engagement with the West, especially after ceding so much ground on German unification.
While Gorbachev fought for his political life as Soviet leader, the Houston summit of the G-7 had debated ways to help perestroika, but because of U.S. opposition to credits or direct economic aid prior to the enactment of serious free-market reforms, no concrete assistance package was approved; the group went no further than to authorize “studies” by the IMF and World Bank. Gorbachev counters that given enough resources the USSR “could move to a market economy,” otherwise, the country “will have to rely more on state-regulated measures.” In this phone call, Bush expands on Kohl’s security assurances and reinforces the message from the London Declaration: “So what we tried to do was to take account of your concerns expressed to me and others, and we did it in the following ways: by our joint declaration on non-aggression; in our invitation to you to come to NATO; in our agreement to open NATO to regular diplomatic contact with your government and those of the Eastern European countries; and our offer on assurances on the future size of the armed forces of a united Germany – an issue I know you discussed with Helmut Kohl. We also fundamentally changed our military approach on conventional and nuclear forces. We conveyed the idea of an expanded, stronger CSCE with new institutions in which the USSR can share and be part of the new Europe.”
Nov 2, 1990
George H.W. Bush Presidential Library, NSC Condoleezza Rice Files, 1989-1990 Subject Files, Folder “Memcons and Telcons – USSR ”
Staffers in the European Bureau of the State Department wrote this document, practically a memcon, and addressed it to senior officials such as Robert Zoellick and Condoleezza Rice, based on notes taken by U.S. participants at the final ministerial session on German unification on September 12, 1990. The document features statements by all six ministers in the Two-Plus-Four process – Shevardnadze (the host), Baker, Hurd, Dumas, Genscher, and De Maiziere of the GDR – (much of which would be repeated in their press conferences after the event), along with the agreed text of the final treaty on German unification. The treaty codified what Bush had earlier offered to Gorbachev – “special military status” for the former GDR territory. At the last minute, British and American concerns that the language would restrict emergency NATO troop movements there forced the inclusion of a “minute” that left it up to the newly unified and sovereign Germany what the meaning of the word “deployed” should be. Kohl had committed to Gorbachev that only German NATO troops would be allowed on that territory after the Soviets left, and Germany stuck to that commitment, even though the “minute” was meant to allow other NATO troops to traverse or exercise there at least temporarily. Subsequently, Gorbachev aides such as Pavel Palazhshenko would point to the treaty language to argue that NATO expansion violated the “spirit” of this Final Settlement treaty.
Oct 22, 1990
George H. W. Bush Presidential Library, NSC Heather Wilson Files, Box CF00293, Folder “NATO – Strategy (5)”
The Bush administration had created the “Ungroup” in 1989 to work around a series of personality conflicts at the assistant secretary level that had stalled the usual interagency process of policy development on arms control and strategic weapons. Members of the Ungroup, chaired by Arnold Kanter of the NSC, had the confidence of their bosses but not necessarily the concomitant formal title or official rank. The Ungroup overlapped with a similarly ad hoc European Security Strategy Group, and this became the venue, soon after German unification was completed, for the discussion inside the Bush administration about the new NATO role in Europe and especially on NATO relations with countries of Eastern Europe. East European countries, still formally in the Warsaw Pact, but led by non-Communist governments, were interested in becoming full members of international community, looking to join the future European Union and potentially NATO.
This document, prepared for a discussion of NATO’s future by a Sub-Ungroup consisting of representatives of the NSC, State Department, Joint Chiefs and other agencies, posits that “[a] potential Soviet threat remains and constitutes one basic justification for the continuance of NATO.” At the same time, in the discussion of potential East European membership in NATO, the review suggests that “In the current environment, it is not in the best interest of NATO or of the U.S. that these states be granted full NATO membership and its security guarantees.” The United States does not “wish to organize an anti-Soviet coalition whose frontier is the Soviet border” – not least because of the negative impact this might have on reforms in the USSR. NATO liaison offices would do for the present time, the group concluded, but the relationship will develop in the future. In the absence of the Cold War confrontation, NATO “out of area” functions will have to be redefined.
Oct 25, 1990
George H. W. Bush Presidential Library: NSC Philip Zelikow Files, Box CF01468, Folder “File 148 NATO Strategy Review No. 1 ”
This concise memorandum comes from the State Department’s European Bureau as a cover note for briefing papers for a scheduled October 29, 1990 meeting on the issues of NATO expansion and European defense cooperation with NATO. Most important is the document’s summary of the internal debate within the Bush administration, primarily between the Defense Department (specifically the Office of the Secretary of Defense, Dick Cheney) and the State Department. On the issue of NATO expansion, OSD “wishes to leave the door ajar” while State “prefers simply to note that discussion of expanding membership is not on the agenda….” The Bush administration effectively adopts State’s view in its public statements, yet the Defense view would prevail in the next administration.
Mar 5, 1991
Rodric Braithwaite personal diary (used by permission from the author)
British Ambassador Rodric Braithwaite was present for a number of the assurances given to Soviet leaders in 1990 and 1991 about NATO expansion. Here, Braithwaite in his diary describes a meeting between British Prime Minister John Major and Soviet military officials, led by Minister of Defense Marshal Dmitry Yazov. The meeting took place during Major’s visit to Moscow and right after his one-on-one with President Gorbachev. During the meeting with Major, Gorbachev had raised his concerns about the new NATO dynamics: “Against the background of favorable processes in Europe, I suddenly start receiving information that certain circles intend to go on further strengthening NATO as the main security instrument in Europe. Previously they talked about changing the nature of NATO, about transformation of the existing military-political blocs into pan-European structures and security mechanisms. And now suddenly again [they are talking about] a special peace-keeping role of NATO. They are talking again about NATO as the cornerstone. This does not sound complementary to the common European home that we have started to build.” Major responded: “I believe that your thoughts about the role of NATO in the current situation are the result of misunderstanding. We are not talking about strengthening of NATO. We are talking about the coordination of efforts that is already happening in Europe between NATO and the West European Union, which, as it is envisioned, would allow all members of the European Community to contribute to enhance [our] security.” In the meeting with the military officials that followed, Marshal Yazov expressed his concerns about East European leaders’ interest in NATO membership. In the diary, Braithwaite writes: “Major assures him that nothing of the sort will happen.” Years later, quoting from the record of conversation in the British archives, Braithwaite recounts that Major replied to Yazov that he “did not himself foresee circumstances now or in the future where East European countries would become members of NATO.” Ambassador Braithwaite also quotes Foreign Minister Douglas Hurd as telling Soviet Foreign Minister Alexander Bessmertnykh on March 26, 1991, “there are no plans in NATO to include the countries of Eastern and Central Europe in NATO in one form or another.”
Apr 27, 1991
U.S. Department of Defense, FOIA release 2016, National Security Archive FOIA 20120941DOD109
These memcons from April 1991 provide the bookends for the “education of Vaclav Havel” on NATO (see Documents 12-1 and 12-2 above). U.S. Undersecretary of Defense for Policy Paul Wolfowitz included these memcons in his report to the NSC and the State Department about his attendance at a conference in Prague on “The Future of European Security,” on April 24-27, 1991. During the conference Wolfowitz had separate meetings with Havel and Minister of Defense Dobrovsky. In the conversation with Havel, Wolfowitz thanks him for his statements about the importance of NATO and US troops in Europe. Havel informs him that Soviet Ambassador Kvitsinsky was in Prague negotiating a bilateral agreement, and the Soviets wanted the agreement to include a provision that Czechoslovakia would not join alliances hostile to the USSR. Wolfowitz advises both Havel and Dobrovsky not to enter into such agreements and to remind the Soviets about the provisions of the Helsinki Final Act that postulate freedom to join alliances of their choice. Havel states that for Czechoslovakia in the next 10 years that means NATO and the European Union.
Em conversa com Dobrovsky, Wolfowitz observa que “a própria existência da OTAN estava em dúvida há um ano”, mas com a liderança dos EUA e o apoio dos aliados da OTAN (assim como da Alemanha unida), sua importância para a Europa é agora compreendida, e as declarações dos líderes da Europa de Leste foram importantes a este respeito. Dobrovsky descreve com franqueza a mudança na posição da liderança da Checoslováquia, “que revisou radicalmente seus pontos de vista. No início, o presidente Havel pediu a dissolução do Pacto de Varsóvia e da OTAN”, mas depois concluiu que a OTAN deveria ser mantida. “Off of the record”, diz Dobrovsky, “o CSFR foi atraído pela OTAN porque garantiu a presença dos EUA na Europa”.
A CIA está municiando o terror neonazista na Ucrânia.
Por Branko Marcetic
A CIA vem treinando secretamente grupos anti-russos na Ucrânia desde 2015. Tudo o que sabemos aponta que estes grupos são neonazistas – e eles estão inspirando terroristas de extrema direita no mundo todo.
CIA UcrÂnia e terror
Membros do regimento neonazista Azov participam de uma marcha para marcar o aniversário da fundação do Exército Insurgente Ucraniano em Kiev em 2020. (STR/NurPhoto via Getty Images)
O governo dos EUA tem um histórico bem documentado de apoio a grupos extremistas como parte de uma panóplia de desventuras na política externa, que inevitavelmente acabam voltando e explodindo na cara do público norte-americano. Na década de 1960, a CIA trabalhou com radicais cubanos anti-Fidel Castro que transformaram Miami em um centro de violência terrorista. Na década de 1980, a agência apoiou e encorajou os radicais islâmicos no Afeganistão, que iriam orquestrar o ataque de 11 de setembro anos depois. E, na década de 2010, Washington apoiou os rebeldes não tão “moderados” da Síria que acabaram causando uma série de atrocidades entre civis e forças curdas que deveriam ser aliados dos EUA na região.
Com base em um novo relatório, parece que em breve poderemos adicionar outro conluio a essa lista de lições fatalmente não aprendidas: neonazistas ucranianos.
De acordo com uma reportagem recente Yahoo! News, desde 2015, a CIA treina secretamente forças na Ucrânia para servir como “líderes insurgentes”, nas palavras de um ex-oficial de inteligência, caso a Rússia acabe invadindo o país. Funcionários atuais estão alegando que o treinamento é puramente para coleta de inteligência, mas os ex-funcionários que falou com o Yahoo! disse que o programa envolvia treinamento em armas de fogo, camuflagem, entre outras práticas paramilitares.
Dados os fatos, há uma boa chance de que a CIA esteja treinando nazistas, literalmente, como parte desse esforço. O ano em que o programa começou, 2015, também foi o mesmo ano em que o Congresso aprovou uma lei de gastos que incluía centenas de milhões de dólares em apoio econômico e militar à Ucrânia, que foi expressamente modificado para permitir que esse apoio fluísse para milícias neonazista no país, como o Regimento Azov. De acordo com o The Nation na época, o texto do projeto de lei aprovado em meados daquele ano continha uma emenda explicitamente barrando “armas, treinamento e outras assistências” a Azov, mas o comitê da Câmara encarregado pelo projeto foi pressionado meses depois pelo Pentágono para remover a linguagem, dizendo que era falsa e redundante.
Apesar da sua histórica relação com o nazismo – um ex-comandante disse uma vez que a “missão histórica” da Ucrânia é “liderar as raças brancas do mundo em uma cruzada final por sua sobrevivência” em “uma cruzada contra os untermenschen [subhumano] liderados pelos semitas” –, o grupo Azov foi incorporado à Guarda Nacional do país em 2014, devido à sua eficácia no combate aos separatistas russos. Armas norte-americanas fluíram para a milícia, oficiais militares da OTAN e dos EUA foram fotografados se reunindo com eles, e membros da milícia falaram sobre seu trabalho com treinadores dos EUA e a falta de triagem de antecedentes para eliminar os supremacistas brancos.
Diante de tudo isso, não seria surpreendente que os neonazistas de Azov tenham sido treinados no programa clandestino de insurgência da CIA. E já estamos vendo os primeiros sinais de bumerangue da história se repetir.
“Vários indivíduos de grupos de extrema direita nos Estados Unidos e na Europa buscaram ativamente relacionamentos com representantes da extrema direita na Ucrânia, especificamente o Guarda Nacional e sua milícia associada, o Regimento Azov”, afirma um relatório de 2020, do Centro de Combate ao Terrorismo da Academia Militar dos EUA de West Point. “Indivíduos baseados nos EUA falaram ou escreveram sobre como o treinamento disponível na Ucrânia pode ajudá-los em suas atividades paramilitares.”
Uma declaração do FBI de 2018 afirmou que Azov “acredita ter participado de treinamento e radicalização de organizações de supremacia branca sediadas nos Estados Unidos”, incluindo membros do movimento supremacista branco Rise Above, processado por ataques planejados a contra manifestantes em eventos de extrema direita, incluindo o comício “Unite the Right” de Charlottesville. Embora pareça que o atirador do massacre da mesquita de Christchurch não tenha viajado para a Ucrânia como ele afirmou, ele claramente se inspirou no movimento de extrema direita de lá e usou um símbolo usado por membros de Azov durante o ataque.
Siga lendo o texto “A CIA está municiando o terror neonazista na Ucrânia”
Desde que assumiu o cargo, Joe Biden lançou uma incipiente “guerra ao terror” doméstica com base no combate ao terrorismo de extrema direita, embora a estratégia vise discretamente atingir manifestantes e ativistas de esquerda também, algo está sendo feito. No entanto, ao mesmo tempo, os três últimos governos, incluindo o de Biden, têm fornecido treinamento, armas e equipamentos para o movimento de extrema direita que está inspirando e até treinando esses mesmos supremacistas brancos.
Destruindo a vila para salvá-la
Vale lembrar o absurdo que é a razão pela qual Washington tem dado assistência aos nazistas ucranianos para que eles possam servir como um baluarte contra a Rússia, que os falcões de guerra comparam, como sempre, ao regime de Adolph Hitler e sua expansão pela Europa na década de 1930. Embora a Rússia de Vladimir Putin possa ser um ator malévolo em várias frentes, as recentes incursões de Putin em Estados vizinhos como a Ucrânia são impulsionadas em grande parte pela expansão da aliança militar da OTAN até suas fronteiras e as implicações de segurança que a acompanham.
Em outras palavras, para frear o que os falcões da guerra classificam como o próximo Hitler e a Alemanha nazista, Washington tem apoiado milícias neonazistas na Ucrânia, que por sua vez estão se comunicando e treinando supremacistas brancos nos EUA, que Washington, por sua vez, está alimentando uma burocracia repressiva ameaçadora para combater. É o que alguns chamam de “enxugando gelo” – as forças de segurança nacional dos EUA estão criando as mesmas ameaças que dizem combater. Em vez de acalmar as tensões simplesmente concordando com as antigas demandas russas de estabelecer um limite rígido para a expansão da OTAN para o leste, Washington aparentemente decidiu que o domínio militar planetário ilimitado é tão importante que vale deitar na cama com fascistas reais.
A aliança dos EUA com a Ucrânia, infectada pelos nazistas, já se mostrou estranha para um presidente que está tentando contrastar com seu antecessor de extrema direita para estabelecer a Casa Branca como líder de um esforço global para fortalecer a democracia. No final do ano passado, em uma votação que passou completamente despercebida na imprensa, os EUA foram um dos dois países (o outro é a Ucrânia) a votar contra um projeto de resolução da ONU “que combate a glorificação do nazismo, neonazismo e outras práticas que possam contribuir para alimentar formas contemporâneas de racismo”. Ambos os países votaram repetidamente contra esta resolução todos os anos desde 2014.
O governo Biden empregou uma explicação quase idêntica e clichê para o voto negativo que Donald Trump usou, citando o direito constitucional à liberdade de expressão mesmo para aqueles com opiniões repugnantes. Mas essa preocupação é difícil de conciliar com o texto, que simplesmente expressa preocupação com memoriais públicos, manifestações e reabilitação dos nazistas, condena a negação do Holocausto e a violência de ódio e pede aos governos que eliminem o racismo por meio da educação e enfrentem ameaças terroristas de extrema direita – tudo mais ou menos alinhada a própria retórica de Biden.
A verdadeira preocupação de Washington aqui reside na descrição da resolução como “tentativas veladas de legitimar as campanhas de desinformação russas que denigrem as nações vizinhas” – ou seja, a Ucrânia. Mas as conexões da Ucrânia com o nazismo moderno estão longe de ser notícias falsas russas, e são de fato extensas e bem documentadas: desde a incorporação oficial de Azov nas fileiras da polícia ucraniana e funcionários do governo com laços de extrema direita até tributos patrocinados pelo Estado a colaboradores nazistas e promoção da negação do Holocausto.
Não é pouca ironia que o presidente dos EUA, eleito em grande parte para deter a marcha do fascismo, continue alimentando essa relação histórica com os nazistas no que pode muito bem ser o nexo do fascismo internacional. E se esses nazistas ucranianos realmente estão entre os insurgentes treinados pela CIA, não será uma tragédia pequena se um dia seguirem a mesma trajetória de Osama bin Laden.
POR Branko Marcetic
Tradução: Cauê Seignemartin Ameni
Publicado originalmente no site da Jacobin
Muitas notícias curtas, mas importantes: uma grande tempestade está se formando
19 de janeiro de 2022
Acabei de ouvir isso no noticiário: (sem ordem específica, pois eles estão chegando)
Blinken está em Kiev e disse que os EUA não darão garantias escritas de NENHUM tipo e se a Rússia atacar a Ucrânia, os EUA irão paralisar a Rússia.
Os russos disseram que os EUA estão preparando uma bandeira falsa na Ucrânia. Os EUA acusaram a Rússia do mesmo.
O presidente do Irã está em Moscou e ofereceu a Putin para se unir contra o Ocidente coletivo.
A Rússia enviou forças à Bielorrússia para treinamento. Essas forças incluirão várias brigadas de armas combinadas e um regimento completo de Su-35S . A data para os exercícios é 10 de fevereiro.
Lukashenko deu as boas-vindas às suas forças de manutenção da paz com um discurso muito bom, explicando que a Bielorrússia e a Rússia sempre se ajudarão.
“Informações alternativas” estilo RT
RT ainda está postando merda assim (veja foto).
A mídia corporativa herdada do ziocon está martelando o “Rússia está prestes a invadir” 24 horas por dia, 7 dias por semana nos EUA e na UE.
Os EUA estão introduzindo ainda mais sanções. Pelo menos 2 versões de “sanções do inferno” estão na mesa de “Biden”.
A UE está ameaçando fechar o russo do NS2.
Josep Borrell chamou Putin de “lobo”. Esse é o nível atual de “diplomacia” da UE…
Políticos e funcionários dos EUA ameaçam desconectar a Rússia do SWIFT (de novo).
Psaki afirma que a Rússia evacuará seu pessoal diplomático de Kiev no final de janeiro e início de fevereiro.
Na Ucrânia, Poroshenko parece ter prevalecido sobre “Ze”: ele não foi preso ou confinado em casa. Poroshenko agora está ameaçando assumir o poder em um novo Maidan.
Os EUA e o Reino Unido estão entregando mais armas ao Banderastan.
Continuarei atualizando este post à medida que mais notícias chegarem. Volte regularmente para verificar se há atualizações.
Há relatos de que as defesas aéreas do Reino Unido estão em alerta total e o tráfego civil está sendo redirecionado. Este mapa parece confirmar isso (veja a imagem)
Os EUA adicionarão 300 (alguns dizem 200) milhões de dólares em ajuda militar à Ucrânia. Militarmente, isso é irrelevante, a maioria será roubada de qualquer maneira, mas incita os Ukies a atacar.
Blinken diz que não dará nada por escrito a Lavrov, a quem ele (Blinken) diz que se encontrará em Genebra na sexta-feira.
Funcionários do LDNR declararam que seu serviço de inteligência confirmou que as forças especiais Urkonazi, treinadas e preparadas pelo Reino Unido, estão preparando ataques terroristas no LDNR. Um porta-voz militar do LDNR disse que os Urkonazis têm seis grupos terroristas prontos para atacar a infraestrutura civil (água, energia, transporte, plantas químicas, etc.) no LDNR. O objetivo seria criar caos e medo, tornando a defesa do LDNR para as forças do LDNR muito mais difícil.
Estou ouvindo uma declaração de Bliken. Ele me soa como se estivesse preparando a opinião pública para uma guerra em grande escala na Ucrânia .
Tanto os EUA quanto o Reino Unido disseram que suas forças não lutariam na Ucrânia sob nenhuma circunstância. Parece que os anglos estão prontos para lutar contra a Rússia até o último ucraniano vivo.
Estou ouvindo especialistas russos no Runet e a maioria deles está torcendo o dedo pela têmpora e dizendo que os americanos americanos são loucos e que estão colocando toda a economia mundial em risco de caos. Eles estão dizendo que a loucura dos EUA terá consequências que serão enormes para todo o planeta.
Autoridades russas também estão dizendo que, se os EUA introduzirem sanções reais, isso significará uma ruptura total nas relações diplomáticas entre a Rússia e o Ocidente coletivo.
Aqui está uma manchete da Sputnik: “ Biden diz que Putin nunca viu sanções como as que os EUA estão preparando agora sobre a Ucrânia ”. Citação: “ A Rússia será responsabilizada se invadir e depende do que fizer – uma coisa é se for uma pequena incursão e depois acabarmos tendo que brigar sobre o que fazer e o que não fazer , mas se eles realmente fizerem o que eles são capazes de fazer com a força acumulada na fronteira, será um desastre para a Rússia se eles invadirem ainda mais a Ucrânia”, disse Biden, acrescentando que a Rússia tem uma superioridade esmagadora sobre a Ucrânia .
Esperar! O que?? Então uma “pequena incursão” está bem?????????
Uma extinção em massa causada pelo homem “começou em terra e em água doce parece cada vez mais provável”, de acordo com um novo artigo.Por Becky Ferreira19 de janeiro de 2022, 11h
PEIXES MORTOS SÃO FOTOGRAFADOS EM UM CANTO DO MAIOR LAGO DE HANÓI, HO TAY, EM 3 DE OUTUBRO DE 2016. IMAGEM: HOANG DINH NAM/AFP VIA GETTY IMAGES
RESUMO divide pesquisas científicas alucinantes, tecnologia futura, novas descobertas e grandes avanços.VEJA MAIS→
Nos últimos 450 milhões de anos, a vida na Terra foi devastada por pelo menos cinco extinções em massa, que são tipicamente definidas como catástrofes que exterminam mais de 75% das espécies em um curto período de tempo. Muitos cientistas propuseram que estamos entrando em uma Sexta Extinção em Massa, desta vez impulsionada pela atividade humana, embora os debates ainda acalmem a validade e as consequências dessa afirmação.PROPAGANDA
Agora, uma equipe liderada por Robert Cowie, professor de pesquisa do Centro de Pesquisa de Biociências do Pacífico da Universidade do Havaí, argumenta que “a Sexta Extinção em Massa começou em terra e em água doce parece cada vez mais provável”, de acordo com um artigo recente publicado na Biological Reviews .
“Consideramos que a Sexta Extinção em Massa provavelmente começou e apresentamos argumentos para combater aqueles que negam isso”, disse a equipe, que também incluiu os biólogos Philippe Bouchet e Benoît Fontaine do Muséum National d’Histoire Naturelle em Paris, França, em o artigo.
“Negar isso é simplesmente voar na cara da montanha de dados que está se acumulando rapidamente e não há mais espaço para ceticismo, imaginando se isso realmente está acontecendo”, acrescentaram os autores.
Cowie e seus colegas se referem a uma infinidade de estudos que catalogam a extinção de espécies em todos os clados, mas o artigo é construído principalmente em torno de suas pesquisas sobre moluscos, uma família de invertebrados que inclui caracóis, moluscos e lesmas. Esse foco contraria a atenção desproporcional que vertebrados, como aves e mamíferos, recebem na Lista Vermelha de Espécies Ameaçadas da União Internacional para a Conservação da Natureza (IUCN), entre outros esforços de conservação.
“As informações da IUCN sobre a extinção de aves e mamíferos provavelmente são bastante precisas”, disse Cowie em uma ligação. “No entanto, eles não avaliaram nada além de uma fração minúscula de invertebrados, como insetos, caracóis, aranhas e crustáceos, que constituem 95% da diversidade animal”.PROPAGANDA
Como resultado, os invertebrados fornecem “mais uma amostra aleatória da biodiversidade”, observou ele.
Estudos anteriores usaram dados da IUCN para refutar a noção de que estamos entrando em uma Sexta Extinção em Massa. Cowie e seus colegas rejeitaram essa suposição compilando as taxas de extinção de caracóis e lesmas terrestres. Extrapolando esses dados, a equipe concluiu que entre 7,5 e 13% das espécies podem ter sido extintas desde o ano de 1500, um número que está de acordo com muitas outras estimativas que sugerem perdas catastróficas de biodiversidade devido às pressões humanas.
“A conclusão é que todas essas estimativas que as pessoas fizeram indicam uma taxa de extinção muito maior agora do que no passado”, disse Cowie.
Esta crise de extinção é muito mais pronunciada em terra do que nos oceanos, de acordo com o artigo, embora muitas espécies marinhas também estejam ameaçadas como resultado da atividade humana. As extinções também estão ocorrendo muito mais rapidamente em ecossistemas insulares, como o Havaí, em comparação com biomas continentais.
Além de alertar sobre uma possível extinção em massa, Cowie e seus colegas abordam uma série de contra-argumentos que, segundo eles, minimizam a gravidade das pressões humanas sobre as espécies do mundo, ou mesmo sugerem que os humanos deveriam aproveitar essas mudanças ecológicas para nosso próprio benefício.PROPAGANDA
A equipe argumenta que esse tipo de “ atitude de laissez-faire em relação à atual crise de extinção é moralmente errado”, de acordo com o artigo, e defende medidas mais urgentes para lidar com a perda de espécies devido à atividade humana.
“Sinto-me obrigado a expressar opiniões sobre o que achamos que deve ser feito, dada esta situação de crise”, disse Cowie. “Não vou apenas apresentar os dados e dizer para acabar com isso. Vou dizer o que devemos fazer para resolver esse problema, porque é uma questão importante.”
Em última análise, a equipe reconhece que os esforços de conservação podem parecer fúteis diante desse enorme problema e sugere que mais energia deve ser gasta em esforços para coletar espécimes de espécies em extinção antes que elas se percam para sempre.
“Não achamos que haja um final positivo; achamos que é meio que um desastre”, concluiu Cowie. “Sentimos que a coisa mais importante que podemos fazer para o futuro é preservar o maior número possível dessas espécies em museus, para que, daqui a 200, 300 ou 500 anos, as pessoas ainda possam dizer que é isso que a Terra já teve. Eu acredito fortemente nisso.”
James McAuleyO candidato presidencial francês de extrema-direita oferece um exagero grosseiro do que muitos na França acreditam, mas poucos se atrevem a admitir.
Benjamin Girette/Bloomberg/Getty Images
Em meados de novembro, Éric Zemmour, o candidato presidencial de extrema direita francês, provocador profissional e virulento islamofóbico, fez uma comício de campanha em Bordeaux, um dos redutos burgueses mais ricos da França. O salão estava lotado, principalmente com jovens brancos de bonés de beisebol que vieram para o discurso empolgante, mas também havia muitas mulheres, várias das quais agradeceram a Zemmour por sua rejeição ao “dogma feminista”. Milhares de pessoas fizeram fila do lado de fora para comprar cópias de seu último livro, La France n’a pas dit son dernier mot(A França não teve sua última palavra). Aconteça o que acontecer na eleição de abril próximo – as chances de vitória de Zemmour são quase inexistentes – ele certamente venderá um monte de livros, como faz toda vez que publica outro lamento sobre o declínio nacional ou “suicídio”, como o título de seu livro mais conhecido. , Le Suicide français (2014), proclama. Essa talvez seja a moral desta história, se é que existe uma: Zemmour responde a uma profunda ansiedade francesa de que a nação está em queda livre, uma espiral descendente que é de alguma forma culpa dos imigrantes muçulmanos. Ele oferece um exagero grosseiro do que muitos acreditam, mas poucos ousam admitir.
Na França, a preocupação moralista sobre a “decadência” é uma tradição intelectual e, de certa forma, Zemmour é apenas uma continuação do medo do fin de siècle e do início do século XX, quando nomes como Maurice Barrès, Charles Maurras , e Édouard Drumont lamentaram a erosão percebida da comunidade nacional orgânica. Mas acima de tudo, Zemmour é uma criação da mídia contemporânea, impingida ao público pela CNews, o equivalente francês da Fox News, que é apoiada pelo bilionário de direita Vincent Bolloré. Ele usou sua plataforma como comentarista de televisão e, até recentemente, como colunista do Le Figaro. lançando guerras culturais intermináveis que pessoas muito mais razoáveis se sentem compelidas. Ele afirma que é motivado por um senso de história, história francesa em particular, mas há momentos em que essa história se encaixa nele próprio.
Aquela noite em Bordeaux foi uma delas. Perto do final da noite, Zemmour permitiu algumas perguntas da platéia. A primeira veio de um homem mais velho que se apresentou como o fundador de uma organização chamada Vigilance Halal, e perguntou se Zemmour, se eleito presidente, proibiria o abate ritual, que faz parte das regras alimentares para muçulmanos e judeus praticantes. “Você é o único candidato a dizer que o Islã não é compatível com a república”, disse o homem. Isso, pelo menos, é verdade. Zemmour declarou repetidamente que o Islã não pertence à França, e foi duas vezes condenado em tribunais franceses por racismo contra muçulmanos e minorias, e até aventou a ideia de deportar certos cidadãos muçulmanos. O homem claramente aprovava essas travessuras, mas ele formulou sua pergunta com mais clareza para ter certeza de que Zemmour tinha ouvido.
Houve murmúrios de desconforto entre a platéia, que naquele momento foi forçada a confrontar uma coisa sobre Zemmour que todos sabem, mas quase ninguém mencionará: ele é um judeu – um judeu que cospe na história judaica, está mais à direita do que extrema-direita tradicional da França, e suscitou a ira e o constrangimento de líderes institucionais judeus franceses ao tentar negar a história real do Holocausto na França. Ainda mais perversamente, Zemmour se aliou a antissemitas impenitentes como Jean-Marie Le Pen – o patriarca de 93 anos da extrema direita francesa e negador condenado do Holocausto – que ainda são de alguma forma figuras no debate público francês. Mas ele é um judeu praticante, no entanto, um membro de uma sinagoga ortodoxa em Paris que cresceu em uma casa kosher, como ele descreve em detalhes em seu livro.Destino Français (2018).
Zemmour ficou visivelmente desconfortável com a pergunta sobre o abate ritual, embora momentos como esses – tentativas de reconciliar a realidade de sua identidade com a toxicidade caricatural de seu programa político, na medida em que ele tem um – sejam inevitáveis. Um homem que nunca perde as palavras de repente se viu um pouco calado. “Confesso que é uma pergunta difícil”, disse ele, procurando uma saída. “Eu tentaria encontrar um compromisso. Acho que devemos trabalhar em direção a um compromisso.” Enquanto eu o observava lutar para responder, ocorreu-me que ele sabia o que realmente estava sendo perguntado, que se ele era francês ou judeu, um binário imaginário que existe na mente de muitos apoiadores que ele cultivou. Este é o paradoxo de Éric Zemmour: quem o aceita como ele é o vê como um charlatão.
Lawrence LessigA república autônoma funciona apenas se expressar a vontade da maioria. Mas um partido está agora comprometido com o governo minoritário por qualquer meio.
O Departamento de Estado está sediando uma cúpula sobre democracia nesta semana. Representantes de todo o mundo se reunirão, virtualmente, “para estabelecer uma agenda afirmativa para a renovação democrática”. Para os Estados Unidos, a página state.gov declara que “a cúpula oferecerá uma oportunidade de ouvir, aprender e se envolver com uma gama diversificada de” atores democráticos. Os Estados Unidos também, continua a página, no que certamente é a cotação em dinheiro de toda a conferência, “mostrar uma das forças únicas da democracia: a capacidade de reconhecer suas imperfeições e enfrentá-las de forma aberta e transparente, para que possamos, como os Estados Unidos A Constituição diz, ‘formar uma união mais perfeita’”.
Não tenho certeza de quem exatamente vai apresentar nossas próprias “imperfeições”. A agenda online está incompleta. Mas é certo que “confrontemos” essas “imperfeições” “aberta e transparentemente”. Porque o que é mais impressionante na compreensão da América sobre nossa própria democracia é nossa capacidade de ver o que simplesmente não está lá. Não somos um modelo para o mundo copiar. Os Estados Unidos são, em vez disso, um estado democrático falido.
Em todos os níveis, as instituições que os EUA desenvolveram para implementar nossa democracia traem o compromisso básico de uma democracia representativa: que ela seja, em sua essência, justa e majoritária. Em vez disso, esse compromisso agora está corrompido na América. E cada aspirante a democracia ao redor do mundo deveria entender as especificidades dessa corrupção – mesmo que apenas para evitar o mesmo em sua própria terra.
Os EUA devem deixar os Balcãs em paz – Antiwar.com Original
A política externa é um instrumento perigoso nas mãos dos liberais modernos. De fato, poucas pessoas são tão temíveis quanto uma cheia de boas intenções empunhando poder militar. Um resultado, quase três décadas atrás, foi o mal amado estado artificial da Bósnia e Herzegovina
Agora o líder sérvio Milorad Dodik está se movendo para desmantelar a nação tripartite. Dodik denunciou o que equivale a uma colônia ocidental, governada por um governador europeu com o título inflado de alto representante , como um “país fracassado” e um “experimento” ocidental que “não funciona”. Essa ameaça à sua obra duvidosa deixou diplomatas americanos e europeus incrédulos à beira da histeria. Afinal, é um dos poucos “sucessos” intervencionistas que eles costumam alardear. O nobre da União Européia e atual alto representante Christian Schmidt lamentou que a Bósnia enfrentasse “a maior ameaça existencial do período pós-guerra”.
Ah, o terror! A civilização ocidental pode sobreviver? Uma nova Idade das Trevas descerá sobre a Europa?
Os Balcãs têm sido a fonte de muitas tragédias ao longo do último século e muito mais. O ponto baixo para a Bósnia, então parte do Império Austro-Húngaro, veio em 28 de junho de 1914, quando o terrorista sérvio Gavrilo Princip – armado pelo chefe da inteligência militar da Sérvia – assassinou o herdeiro do trono Habsburgo. Ao fazê-lo, Princip acendeu o pavio lento da Primeira Guerra Mundial. Mais de 20 milhões de pessoas morreram no conflito que se seguiu.
A monarquia dos Habsburgos não sobreviveu à guerra, e a Bósnia acabou fazendo parte do novo estado poliglota da Iugoslávia, cujo nome foi inventado a partir de palavras que significam sul e eslavos. A Iugoslávia sobreviveu à Segunda Guerra Mundial e à Guerra Fria, mas entrou em colapso sem glória após a morte do ditador Josip Broz Tito e a dissolução da União Soviética. Uma série de guerras civis eclodiu, com a secessão ativamente encorajada pela Alemanha seguida por outros governos ocidentais.
A Bósnia tornou-se o campo de batalha mais sangrento. A pluralidade bósnia (muçulmana) esperava manter um estado multiétnico no qual era dominante. Croatas e sérvios étnicos queriam sair, na esperança de se juntarem a seus compatriotas em outros estados etnicamente unificados. Em 1992, todos concordaram em se separar como parte do Acordo de Lisboa. O acordo foi morto por Warren Zimmerman, então embaixador dos Estados Unidos em Belgrado, que imprudentemente prometeu apoio dos EUA ao Estado bósnio. O resultado foi uma terrível guerra civil na qual todos os lados cometeram atrocidades, embora os sérvios o fizessem de forma mais ostensiva. Os formuladores de políticas de Washington admitiram mais tarde que cometeram um erro ao bloquear o acordo.
Na época, no entanto, frustrados porque os nativos rebeldes se recusaram a ouvir seus superiores americanos, os EUA lançaram uma campanha de bombardeio contra os sérvios bósnios. (Washington se recusou até mesmo a reconhecer as atrocidades cometidas por outras facções, como a limpeza étnica violenta dos sérvios da Croácia.) Tomar o lado dos bósnios levou ao Acordo de Dayton de 1995, que criou um estado hediondo, desajeitado e sem propósito sobre dois semi-autônomos. entidades políticas e três comunidades étnicas. Acima de todos eles foi colocado o impressionante gauleiter europeu.
A única razão pela qual a Bósnia existe é porque as autoridades americanas e europeias estavam empolgadas em aproveitar sua oportunidade única de se envolver em engenharia social e criar o tipo de estado multiétnico que eles acreditavam que deveria existir e que outros deveriam dar as boas-vindas. O que o povo bósnio realmente queria era irrelevante. O papel deles era obedecer a seus senhores estrangeiros e, como os americanos disseram uma vez sobre o México após a guerra mexicano-americana, aprender “a amar seu violador”.
No entanto, a subserviência sérvia terminou sob Dodik, que anunciou planos para se retirar sistematicamente da autoridade militar, judiciária e fiscal conjunta da Bósnia. A gritaria em Sarajevo, Bruxelas e Washington era assustadora de se ver. O alto representante lamentou que isso era “equivalente à secessão sem proclamá-la”.
Os EUA impuseram sanções a Dodik, cujos motivos e ações reconhecidamente não são puros. No entanto, esta é a resposta inicial de Washington a todos que discordam de Washington e resistem aos seus ditames. Além disso, sanções pessoais como essas são em grande parte simbólicas, sem impacto na política governamental. De fato, Dodik jogou fora a hostilidade, proclamando que “não há autoridade no mundo que possa nos deter”.
O que fez os suspeitos de sempre correrem descontroladamente, como galinhas sem cabeça. Voltando à Primeira Guerra Mundial, o jornalista Srecko Latal alertou que “o pavio do barril de pólvora dos Bálcãs foi aceso. Ele deve ser eliminado antes que a região, e até a própria Europa, seja engolida pelo fogo”. Apelando mais ao público dos EUA, Hikmet Karcic, do Instituto Newlines para Estratégia e Política, pediu a intervenção americana para que a Bósnia não “se torne outro Afeganistão”.
Dodik não ameaçou ninguém. Ele apenas quer que Sarajevo, Bruxelas e Washington deixem seu povo em paz. Se houver uma ameaça de guerra, ela só virá dos croatas e bósnios se eles tentarem conter os sérvios. Essa é a possibilidade que os EUA e a União Européia deveriam rejeitar.
Em vez disso, como bons liberais, funcionários americanos e europeus apoiam a estrutura autoritária e antidemocrática injustamente imposta aos residentes bósnios. Eles agem como se tivessem sido escolhidos pelo povo, apesar de terem sido precedidos por uma campanha de bombardeio dos EUA. Por exemplo, o conselheiro do Departamento de Estado, Derek Chollet, exortou as autoridades bósnias a “se elevarem acima de seus próprios interesses e tentarem manter em mente o interesse mais amplo de seu país”.
Caso contrário, ele ameaçou “punir esse tipo de comportamento”. O fato de ele sentir a necessidade de prometer coerção se os sérvios não amassem e obedecessem ao seu violador apenas demonstrava mais uma vez que a Bósnia não é e nunca foi “seu país”. É claro que a posição de Washington sobre a Bósnia não tem nada a ver com servir aos interesses dos bósnios e tudo a ver com o avanço dos interesses geopolíticos de Washington, admitiu Chollet, colocando a Bósnia “de volta ao seu destino euro-atlântico”, sem desvios permitidos.
O que Washington e Bruxelas farão se Dodik seguir em frente? O governo Biden o sancionou novamente no início de janeiro por “corrupção significativa e atividades desestabilizadoras”. Infelizmente, isso não teve impacto. No outono passado, ele disse a um enviado americano que “não dava a mínima” para essas ameaças. Após a última explosão de Washington, Dodik realizou um comício em uma celebração de feriado proibida a declaração de independência do território em 1992, que contou com a presença de altos funcionários sérvios. Ele declarou: “Esta reunião é a melhor resposta para aqueles que nos negam nossos direitos … que continuam impondo sanções sobre nós.” Ele acrescentou que “Isso prova para mim que devo ouvi-lo, que você não me elegeu para cumprir os desejos dos americanos, mas para cumprir os desejos do povo sérvio”.
Que tal uma ação militar aliada? Os europeus não lutarão uns pelos outros contra uma ameaça real; eles certamente não vão intervir nos Balcãs por nada. Nem parece provável que Biden vá à guerra por uma Bósnia unida. E se os croatas e bósnios se mobilizarem? O presidente bósnio, Sefik Dzaferovic, opinou: “Não será pacífico”. Por que não? Na ausência de um ataque ao seu povo ou instituições, por que ele deveria se opor à saída dos sérvios étnicos?
Dodik está confiante de que vencerá, embora sua carreira tenha apresentado piruetas políticas dramáticas. No outono passado, ele insistiu: “Mais cedo ou mais tarde, os EUA terão que adotar uma política realista em vez de nos ameaçar com sanções”. Talvez, embora Washington tenha uma longa história de apego a políticas de morte cerebral, como no Afeganistão, desde que outros paguem o custo.
Seja qual for o resultado, o curso independente de Dodik não constitui uma crise. Os Bálcãs nunca importaram muito para os EUA e mesmo para a maioria das nações europeias. A região não está mais em chamas ou provavelmente queimará novamente. Se os sérvios bósnios optarem por sair, Washington e Bruxelas devem incentivar as negociações entre os três grupos para tornar a divisão o mais eficiente e amigável possível. E então todos deveriam seguir com suas vidas, deixando o povo dos Bálcãs decidir seu próprio futuro.
Doug Bandow é membro sênior do Cato Institute. Ex-assistente especial do presidente Ronald Reagan, ele é o autor de Foreign Follies: America’s New Global Empire.