Why Territory? By Ian Klinke

Why Territory?

By Ian Klinke

Territory is increasingly presented as the only response to the world’s problems. But if territory is the answer, then what exactly is the question?

Inthe 1990s, it was common for us to hear and read about the end of territory. The Berlin Wall had fallen and the remaining pockets of real existing socialism were crumbling fast under the forces of liberal capitalism. As the European Union dissolved its internal borders, the spread of the internet seemed to further de-territorialise our lives. Two decades on, the picture seems to be a rather different one.

From the United Kingdom’s decision to retreat into the nation-state to the construction of border fences and walls in Israel, Hungary, the United States and elsewhere, the control of geographical areas seems to have returned to haunt us. Even cyberspace is now increasingly policed, both by authoritarian and more democratic states alike. Many of those who valorise a territorial world will argue that there is something inherently natural about this return of territory. Indeed, as a way of demarcating power in space, the question of territory may seem as old as mankind — but it is not.

Today, territory is commonly assumed to be a portion of the Earth’s surface, including its subsoil, airspace and adjacent waters, that is controlled by a state. Territory defines the geographical area over which a state has jurisdiction and it allows the state to filter the movement of people and goods into and out of this area. As an attempt to say “this far and no further”, territory may seem inherent to the human condition. But if territory was of natural rather than of cultural origin, we should be able to observe attempts to territorialise politics in all societies throughout history. Divided cities like Belfast, Jerusalem or Nicosia would be the rule rather than the exception. In fact, the logic of territory has its origins only in the 17th century.

“As a way of demarcating power in space, the question of territory may seem as old as mankind — but it is not.”

Rather than an answer to the question of migration, territory was originally a response to the problem of religious warfare. Indeed, it first emerged as a solution to the Thirty Years’ War, a conflict that had wiped out millions of Central Europeans between 1618 and 1648 in the name of both Protestantism and Catholicism. In order to ban such wars in the future, rulers should choose their territory’s denomination without interference from others. Those amongst the population who felt they would prefer to inhabit a territory with a different denomination to their ruler’s could simply leave. From this arose the principles of territorial sovereignty and non-intervention, which remain crucial to the functioning of contemporary world politics.

States have not always been interested in making exact maps of their territories. Feudal states, city states and empires did not govern through territory. The Romans, for instance, may have used the term ‘territory’, but it referred mainly to the land associated with a city. They did not imagine their world to be made up of territorial states. Instead of being governed by hard external borders, their empire was ruled through fuzzy boundaries. Medieval states were systems of rule that were based on inter-personal relations rather than the idea of territory. It was only in the 17th and 18th centuries that the world witnessed an explosion in cartographic activity. For in order to govern their territories, states also had to survey, calculate, and map their boundaries.

If we want to understand why so many of us have come to think of territory as a basic instinct rather than a political institution, we have to travel to the late 19th century, to a time when European colonialism was at its peak and the age of exploration had come to an end. It was in this political climate that the German zoologist-turned-geographer Friedrich Ratzel would come to write about territory as the target of a biological urge that was inherent in all species and nations. He argued that, much like caterpillars and primroses, nations were organisms that needed living space if they wanted to ensure their survival. A nation’s health could be judged only by its territory. This idea of the need for living space would develop a powerful traction in the early 20th century, as a whole range of political movements and regimes started to fetishise territory and sought to expand their living space by force.

“If we want to understand why so many of us have come to think of territory as a basic instinct rather than a political institution, we have to travel to the late 19th century.”

Russia’s annexation of Crimea in 2014 aside, straightforward territorial conquest is comparatively rare in today’s world. And yet, borders and territorial questions still seem to structure the way in which our world works. We encounter this territorial world in border crossings, airports, and, if unlucky, in refugee camps and detention centres. In a biometric age, we even have our citizenship imprinted on our bodies — through our iris and fingerprints. And yet it is important to remember that this world of increasingly fortified borders is in fact rather new. Until WWI, it would have been possible to travel through Europe without a passport.

It is similarly vital not to forget that the territorial border remains only one way in which power is exerted over populations through space. There are others. Indeed, the prevention of motion by barbed wire in the 20th century was always accompanied by attempts to channel motion in particular directions. Much of this was — and continues to be — done through the built environment. Think of the forces unleashed by the Autobahn, or the invisible hand that lures us into the temples of consumer capitalism on a Sunday. Territory is never the only game in town. It has to coexist with other perhaps more consensual forms of control.

Territory is also hardly the smoothest form of power. Everyone who has tried to change the behaviour of a child or even a pet by assigning them a territory will know of the resistance that this can provoke. If we look at the responses of European states to the current refugee crisis, the problem soon becomes apparent. Barbed wire, the attempt to control migration by piercing human flesh, is not only imperfect (for the human body will eventually find a way around it), but it is also a powerful symbol of oppression; we only have to think of the iconic barbed wire fences of Auschwitz or Amnesty International’s logo. During the Cold War, the anti-nuclear movement often congregated precisely around NATO’s razor-wired military bases from which a nuclear war was to be waged on the world. So when states put up fences and walls today, this always also exposes the fundamental violence at the heart of the modern state.

Territory can also be an obstacle in other ways. It can limit what can be said and done. It is difficult, for instance, to wage a war without having a territorial state as an enemy. When the United States and its allies first embarked on the war against the shady forces of international terrorism in 2001, they saw themselves forced to find a territorial state that could be targeted by the Anglo-American war machine — Afghanistan.

The relationship between terror and territory is a crucial one in other ways, too. Think of the recent mass killings that have been carried out by young men — and they are nearly all men — in places like Brussels, Paris, Orlando and Berlin. Even before the blood has dried, there will be speculation about the perpetrator’s nationality. If he holds a passport from a predominantly Muslim nation or was born in such a nation, then the act is usually declared a terrorist act, no matter how weak his religiosity or his links to terrorist networks. The man may drink and have girlfriends, but he will be branded a terrorist. His motives will be assumed to be public and thus political.

If, however, he is from Western Europe — like the Germanwings co-pilot Andreas Lubitz, who killed 150 in 2015 by downing his plane in the French Alps — then the motive is usually assumed to be private and we will hear about his psychology rather than his politics. If it is terror, then we can see all kinds of exceptional measures brought into force, from detention without trial to the bombing of Islamic State in Syria, as carried out by France after the Paris attacks. If it is “simply” a mass killing, then nothing much happens at all. One of the key differences is the passport.

“This vision of a world in which your passport defines your politics is of course a dangerous one — but it is also one that will likely provoke opposition.”

As xenophobic and nationalist movements and politicians are increasingly swept into power in the global North, we increasingly hear that territory is the solution to our problems. But if territory is the answer, then what precisely is the question? In the early 21st century, the question is perhaps not so much ‘migration’ or ‘identity’, as it is often claimed, but the failures of Western liberalism with its fantasy of a borderless globe of free trade and commerce. Financial deregulation, privatisation, and globalisation have created a world that radiates a sense of insecurity amongst the majority of the population. Since the global financial crisis of 2008, it has become increasingly clear that prosperity and financial security are no longer attainable for large segments of the population, even in developed economies. If we add to this the threat of climate change, then we can even say that the belief in ‘progress’, a notion that has stood at the heart of ‘The West’ since the Enlightenment, itself has been shattered. Suddenly it makes more sense why the timeless truths of a territorial world seem so appealing to many.

If we accept that the recent rise of the new right in the United States and Europe is not so much a response to the so-called refugee crisis, but, much like the rise of fascism in the 1930s, an answer to this fundamental disillusionment and insecurity, then we can see much more clearly that territory is in fact a trick. It tricks us into believing that there is a way to collapse our planetary complexities back into a world of parcelled-up territories. This is nothing less than the fantasy of creating a world in which there are only people who identify with the territorial state, people who desire and fear the same things. This vision of a world in which your passport defines your politics is of course a dangerous one — but it is also one that will likely provoke opposition.

This is an extract from Weapons of Reason’s fourth issue: Power, available to order now.

Illustrations by Koivo

Palestine: “There’s No Conflict, There’s An Illegal Occupation”

Interview With Dr. Asem Khalil


Professor Doctor Asem Khalil, Ph.D. in Constitutional and International Law, Associate Professor of Law of Birzeit University, West Bank, speaks of ways to consolidate the Palestine State, and definitely end Israeli crimes against humanity in the Palestinian territories.

Edu Montesanti: Dear Professor Doctor Asem Khalil, thank you so very much for granting this interview. How do you evaluate the meeting between President Donald Trump and Prime-Minister Benjamin Netanyahu on February 15? “I’m looking at two-State and one-state” formulations, President Trump said during a White House news conference with Mr. Netanyahu. “I like the one that both parties like. I’m very happy with the one that both parties like. I can live with either one”. Your view, please.

Dr. Asem Khalil: The Palestinians always called for a One State; as a compromise they accepted to enter a peace process where two state solution is envisaged as a way to get peace. If by one state, we mean equal rights for all citizens,

I don’t see why Palestinians would reject that – if they were first to ask for it and accepted only as a compromise the call for two state solution where most of historic Palestine will be part of the now state of Israel.

I think the answer given by Trump wasn’t thought through enough, and I don’t think Israel would go for a one State where one person one vote anyway.

Edu Montesanti: Why cannot Israel and the Palestinians decide alone the question? Why do Palestinians need a third party to get an agreement?

Dr. Asem Khalil: Palestinians are under occupation. It is not their own responsibility to negotiate with the occupier; for sure, it is not part of any negotiation whether to maintain or end occupation – negotiation may be on the modalities on how to do that only.

So far, Palestinians are in a weak position. They are requested to chose pacific means to reach liberation and end occupation, while at the same time, they are asked to negotiate directly with an occupier who continues to confiscate land day on day out.

It is the responsibility of the international community to put an end to one of the last occupations in the world. It is the responsibility of all community of states to make sure that rights of Palestinians – which are erga omnes – are respected.

Edu Montesanti: The United Nations Security Council Resolution 2334 voted on December 23 last year, condemning the Israeli settlements as a flagrant violation of international law and a major impediment to the achievement of a two-state solution, changes nothing on the ground between Israel and the Palestinians. UN member States “agree to accept and carry out the decisions of the Security Council”, according to the UN Charter. Human rights and the international community also condemns the Israeli settlements and military attacks against Palestinians. Journalist Daoud Kuttab observed in Al-Jazeera in February, in the article US and Israel join forces to bury Palestinian statehood: “Ever since the 1967 occupation, the United Nations Security Council has repeatedly expressed the illegality of the occupation, as in the preamble of Resolution 242 ‘emphasizing inadmissibility of the acquisition of territory by war’.” Why does nothing change year by year, massacre after massacre?

Dr. Asem Khalil: Change doesn’t come by UN resolutions. There are few cases like the one of Israel where the UN and the Security Council in particular showed how incompetent they are in dealing with Israel’s violations of Palestinians’ rights on their land and their right to self-determination.

Palestinian leadership, nonetheless, still think that such resolutions are important. They help maintain clear what is just and what is not.

What is acceptable and what is not. Changes in international relations and power relations between states may help in the future bring the change that is needed. Although it may be too late by then.

Edu Montesanti: What are the crimes committed by Israel against Palestinians?

Dr. Asem Khalil: There are various massacres that were committed by Israel against Palestinians surrounding the creation of the state of Israel in 1948 – causing and contributing to forced displacement and refugeehood of thousands of people.

Many other massacres were committed afterwards, either directly or indirectly. Bombings directed towards civilian areas and facilities continued in recent years when attacking Gaza.

Edu Montesanti: How is life in Gaza and in the West Bank?

Dr. Asem Khalil: Gaza is being qualified as a big prison – unqualified for human living because of lack of necessary civilian infrastructures and lack of jobs.

Most West Bank populated cities are living under Palestinian Authority rule – which coordinates with Israel in security and civil matters too.

Edu Montesanti: Professor Avi Shlaim observed days ago, in Al-Jazeera: “Sadly, the Palestinians are handicapped by weak leadership and by the internal rivalry between Fatah and Hamas.” Your view on the internal politics in Palestine, please, Professor Doctor Khalil.

Dr. Asem Khalil: He is right. This is part of the problem and why stagnation is in place. It is part of the story though.

The full picture is an Israeli occupation which separated Gaza from West Bank and maintained legal and political fragmentation since then; it is also in the way Oslo separated de facto the two areas and maintained a status quo where Palestinians are not dealt with by Israeli occupation – and contrary to the wordings of Oslo – as one political community and West Bank and Gaza Strip were not in reality considered or dealt with as one political entity.

Edu Montesanti: What could we expect from Arab leaders from now on?

Dr. Asem Khalil: We don’t have much expectations. We think the Arab region is now busy with their own problems.

They are now seeing the Palestinian issue as marginal and secondary. This is very problematic now.

Edu Montesanti: How do you see the Boycott, Divestment, Sanctions (BDS) movement?

Dr. Asem Khalil: The BDS movement can be the way ahead for peaceful resistance to occupation and apartheid in Palestine. Israel is aware of the historical precedence of South Africa and the boycott movement that ended up at the end in delegitimizing the apartheid regime in South Africa, and contributed to the entry of a new era there.

We hope similar thing happens now – not delegitimizing the state of Israel, but the apartheid regime in place.

Edu Montesanti: What is the solution to the conflict, Professor Doctor Asem Khalil?

Dr. Asem Khalil: There is no conflict. There is an occupation that needs to come to an end; a colonization project that needs to be aborted; an apartheid regime that needs to be dismantled; justice and equality to be restored.

If and when this is done, no need to think of mechanisms to end a conflict because it wouldn’t exist.

Why is the Trump still “allies” with Saudi Arabia?

800 Families File Lawsuit Against Saudi Arabia over 9/11

March 20, 2017 at 4:11 pm

(ANTIMEDIA) New York, NY — Eight-hundred families of 9/11 victims and 1,500 first responders, along with others who suffered as a result of the attacks, have filed a lawsuit against Saudi Arabia over its alleged complicity in the 2001 terror attacks, according to an exclusive report by local New York outlet Pix 11.

The legal document, filed in a federal court in Manhattan, describes the Saudi role in the attacks. Pix 11reports:

The document details how officials from Saudi embassies supported hijackers Salem al-Hazmi and Khalid Al-Mihdhar 18 months before 9/11.

The officials allegedly helped them find apartments, learn English and obtain credit cards and cash. The documents state that the officials helped them learn how to blend into the American landscape.”

For years, suspicions have swirled that some Saudi officials had ties to the gruesome attacks. The recent release of FBI reports produced shortly after the attacks provided details to justify growing skepticism against the Saudis. These details were further bolstered by the release of 28 pages originally withheld from the 9/11 commission report. Though the U.S. government downplayed the findings, even some lawmakers expressed concern.

Pix 11 further described the lawsuit, which reportedly relies on information from the FBI’s investigations:

The suit also produces evidence that officials in the Saudi embassy in Germany supported lead hijacker Mohamed Atta. It claims that a Saudi official was in the same hotel in Virginia with several hijackers the night before the attacks.

The suit also alleges “some of the hijackers had special markers in their passports, identifying them as al-Qaida sympathizers.

According to the suit, filed by aviation law firm Kreindler & Kreindler, “Saudi royals, who for years had been trying to curry favor with fundamentalists to avoid losing power, were aware that funds from Saudi charities were being funneled to al-Qaida.

The charities were alter egos of the Saudi government,” Jim Kreindler told Pix 11.

According to Kreindler, “there was a direct link between all the charities and Osama bin Laden and…they operated with the full knowledge of Saudi officials.”

The lawsuit reportedly details how funds were transferred from charities inside Saudi Arabia to the terror group. One of those charities, Al-Haramain Islamic Foundation, has been designated a sponsor of terrorism by the U.S. government.

Kreindler insists Saudi involvement occurred and was blatantly malicious.

The Saudis were so duplicitous,” he said. “They claim to be allies fighting with U.S. against Iran, while at the same time working with the terrorists. There’s no question they had a hand in the 9/11 attacks.”

Until late last year, families of 9/11 victims were unable to sue foreign countries over their potential involvement in the attacks. In September, Congress overrode President Obama’s veto of the Justice Against Sponsors of Terrorism Act, which allows for the suit filed this week.

President Obama, like George Bush before him, enjoyed a cozy relationship with the kingdom. The Bush family has had a long, profitable history with the Saudi regime over shared oil interests. Obama continued to protect the ongoing, warm relationship by approving billions of dollars worth of weapons sales to the kingdom. He also backed the monarchy’s onslaught of Yemen, where thousands of civilians have been killed with American-supplied weapons.

The Obama and Bush administrations have done nothing but fight the 9/11 families for 15 years,” James Riches, the father of a first responder who died in the attacks and participant in the suit, told Pix 11 last month. “The United States government took the side of the Saudis over the 9/11 families.

President Trump, for his part, previously criticized the Saudis, even acknowledging their alleged role in the 9/11 attacks when the 28-pages were released. However, since taking office, Trump has moved closer to Saudi Arabia, approving a weapons deal even Barack Obama rejected. Trump has also continued bombing Yemen, and Exxon Mobil, whose former CEO now serves at Trump’s secretary of state, has historical business ties to the Saudis. Secretary of State Rex Tillerson recently refused to acknowledge Saudi Arabia’s human rights abuses.

Considering Trump’s unpredictable leadership and his previous allusion to the Saudi role in 9/11, it is currently unclear how the president will react to the recent lawsuit. Regardless, those filing the suit appear to be committed to their attempts to achieve accountability.


This lawsuit is a demonstration of the unwavering commitment of the 9/11 families to hold Saudi Arabia accountable for its critical role in the 9/11 attacks,” Kreindler said.

Creative Commons / Anti-Media / Report a typo

President Trump has changed nothing for the good of America…(cont.)

The FBI’s Secret Rules


President Trump has inherited a vast domestic intelligence agency with extraordinary secret powers. A cache of documents offers a rare window into the FBI’s quiet expansion since 9/11.


Domestic Investigations and Operations Guide

The rulebook governing all FBI agents’ activities, in unredacted form for the first time. This is the 2011 edition, which remains the baseline document today, although the FBI recently released some updates from 2013.


Hidden Loopholes Allow FBI Agents to Infiltrate Political and Religious Groups

Cora Currier
Beneath the FBI’s redaction marks are exceptions to rules on “undisclosed participation.”

National Security Letters Demand Data Companies Aren’t Obligated to Provide

Jenna McLaughlin, and Cora Currier
Internal documents suggest the FBI uses the secret orders to pursue sensitive customer data like internet browsing records.

Despite Anti-Profiling Rules, the FBI Uses Race and Religion When Deciding Who to Target

Cora Currier
The bureau still claims considerable latitude to use race, ethnicity, nationality, and religion in deciding which people and communities to investigate.

In Secret Battle, Surveillance Court Reined in FBI Use of Information Obtained From Phone Calls

Jenna McLaughlin

Secret Rules Make It Pretty Easy for the FBI to Spy on Journalists

Cora Currier
Rules governing the use of national security letters allow the FBI to obtain information about journalists’ calls without going to a judge or informing the targeted news organization.

Annotation Sets

  • Bureau Hid Doubts About Reliability of Stingray Evidence Behind Redaction Marks

  • CIA and NSA Dossiers Are Available to the FBI in the Absence of Any Crime, Raising Privacy Questions

  • FBI Spy Planes Must Abide Rules When Looking Into Homes

  • On Campus, the FBI Sometimes Operates Outside Restrictions

  • To Probe the Digital Defenses of Targets, the FBI Turns To a Special Program

Confidential Human Source Policy Guide

Detailed rules for how the FBI handles informants. Classified secret. This unreleased September 2015 document is a major expansion and update of a manual from 2007 on the same topic.


The FBI Gives Itself Lots of Rope to Pull in Informants

Trevor Aaronson
Agents have the authority to aggressively investigate anyone they believe could be a valuable source for the bureau.

When Informants Are No Longer Useful, the FBI Can Help Deport Them

Trevor Aaronson
The FBI coordinates with immigration authorities to locate informants who are no longer of value to the bureau.

How the FBI Conceals Its Payments to Confidential Sources

Trevor Aaronson
A classified policy guide creates opportunities for agents to disguise payments as reimbursements or offer informants a cut of seized assets.

Annotation Sets

  • How the FBI Recruits and Handles Its Army of Informants

Counterterrorism Policy Guide

Excerpts from a guide for agents working on counterterrorism cases, which functions as a supplement to the FBI’s main rulebook, the Domestic Investigations and Operations Guide. Classified secret. Not previously released. Dates to April 2015.


Undercover FBI Agents Swarm the Internet Seeking Contact With Terrorists

Cora Currier
The FBI’s online activities are so pervasive that the bureau sometimes finds itself investigating its own people.

Based on a Vague Tip, the Feds Can Surveil Anyone

Cora Currier
Low-level “assessments” allow the FBI to follow people with planes, examine travel records, and run subjects’ names through the CIA and NSA.

The FBI Has Quietly Investigated White Supremacist Infiltration of Law Enforcement

Alice Speri
Bureau policies have been crafted to take into account the active presence of domestic extremists in U.S. police departments.

Annotation Sets

  • Disruptions: How the FBI Handles People Without Bringing Them To Court

Confidential Human Source Assessing Aid

A document bearing the seal of the FBI’s Anchorage field office that gives tips for agents cultivating informants. It is classified secret, and dates from 2011.


DIOG Profiling Rules 2016

A 2016 update to the Domestic Investigations and Operations Guide’s policy on profiling by race, gender, and other factors.


Guidance on Guardian Assessments 2013

A 2013 unclassified communique from the FBI’s counterterrorism division explaining the database checks and other steps to be taken as part of low-level investigations.


National Security Letters Redacted

An unclassified internal FBI document explaining the rules for national security letters, orders that the bureau uses to obtain certain information without a warrant. The document is undated but contains references to another document from November 2015.


This Week at Trump’s Zionist Owned U.S. State Dept: March 17, 2017

Trump is the Now Officially the New Obama Succubent in his 1st 100 days



Missed key foreign policy coverage over the last week? We’ve got you covered. Each week, DipNote will recap the latest U.S. Department of State highlights covering a wide range of global issues, events, and initiatives in one easy to read post.

Here are the highlights from This Week at State:

Secretary Tillerson Makes First Visit to the East Asia and Pacific Region

Secretary Tillerson Addresses Reporters at Joint Press Conference With South Korean Foreign Minister Yun in Seoul. (State Department Photo)

On March 17, Secretary Tillerson traveled to the Republic of Korea for meetings with senior officials to discuss bilateral and multilateral issues, including the United States’ continued “ironclad” support of the U.S.-Republic of Korea alliance and the growing threat presented by Democratic People’s Republic of Korea (DPRK). While in Seoul, the Secretary held meetings with the acting President Hwang Kyo-ahn and Foreign Minister Yun.

“The U.S. commitment to our allies is unwavering. In the face of North Korea’s grave and escalating global threat, it is important for me to consult with our friends, and chart a path that secures the peace. Let me be very clear: the policy of strategic patience has ended. We are exploring a new range of diplomatic, security, and economic measures. All options are on the table. North Korea must understand that the only path to a secure, economically-prosperous future is to abandon its development of nuclear weapons, ballistic missiles, and other weapons of mass destruction.” — Secretary of State Tillerson, Seoul, Korea March 17, 2017

The day prior, Secretary Tillerson traveled to Tokyo, Japan. While in Japan, the Secretary underscored the Administration’s commitment to broaden U.S. economic and security interests in the Asia-Pacific region and reaffirmed the importance of cooperation within the U.S.-Japan alliance during discussions with Japanese Foreign Minister Fumio Kishida and Japanese Prime Minister Shinzo.

Secretary Tillerson travels to Beijing on March 18 for the final leg of his Asia trip. Follow the State Department on Twitter and Facebook and visit www.state.gov for more information.

The United States Reaffirmed Commitment to a Sovereign Ukraine

On the third anniversary of Russia’s Crimean “Referendum,” the United States reaffirmed its commitment to a sovereign and whole Ukraine.

“The United States does not recognize Russia’s “referendum” of March 16, 2014, nor its attempted annexation of Crimea and continued violation of international law. We once again reaffirm our commitment to Ukraine’s sovereignty and territorial integrity…Crimea is a part of Ukraine. The United States again condemns the Russian occupation of Crimea and calls for its immediate end. Our Crimea-related sanctions will remain in place until Russia returns control of the peninsula to Ukraine.” — Press Statement by State Department Acting Spokesperson Mark Toner

Ambassador Nikki Haley Addresses the 61st Commission on the Status of Women

U.S. Permanent Representative to the United Nations Ambassador Nikki Haley, delivered remarks during the 61st UN Commission on the Status of Women, an annual two-week session that brings together more than 40 UN member government representatives and civil society to discuss ways to improve the lives of women around the globe. The theme of this year’s session was “Women in the Changing World of Work.” In her remarks, Ambassador Haley shared her mother’s story and emphasized the importance of ensuring fair, equal opportunities for women and girls around the world.

And now, a look ahead to what is happening next week at State:

Secretary Tillerson to Host Global Coalition to Defeat ISIS Ministerial

On March 22, Secretary Tillerson will host the foreign ministers and senior leaders of the Global Coalition working to defeat ISIS. This meeting will take place at the Department of State in Washington D.C., and will be the first meeting of the full Coalition, now at 68 members, since December 2014.

The ministerial will include a detailed discussion of priorities for the Coalition’s multiple lines of effort, including military, foreign terrorist fighters, counterterrorist financing, counter-messaging, and stabilization of liberated areas, to increase the momentum of the campaign. Additionally, Ministers will discuss the ongoing humanitarian crises in Iraq and Syria that are affecting the region.

Follow the State Department on Twitter and Facebook for additional information and updates.

Catch up on previous This Week at State blogs on DipNote and Medium.com.

This entry originally appeared on DipNote, the U.S. State Department’s Official blog.

David Sheen a Jew Himself, Tells how Nasty Jews are to Palestinians


Top: Jewish Religions: Christianity: Penetration of The Christian Organizations

How The Jews Have Corrupted Christianity


“We have long past taken care to discredit the clergy of the Goyim, and thereby to ruin their mission
on earth which in these days might still be a great hinderance to us. Day by day their influence on
the peoples of the world is falling lower. Freedom of conscience has been declared everywhere, so
that now only years divide us from the moment of the COMPLETE WRECKING of that Christian
religion! As to other religions, we shall have still less difficulty in dealing with them.

“In the meantime, we shall not overtly lay a finger on existing churches, but we shall fight against
them by criticism. Our contemporary press will continue be every means to lower their prestige in
the manner which can only be practised by the genius of our gifted tribe.” – Protocol 17

The Jews, have become the most ANTI-God people on the face of the earth because they rejected
God and rejected His Son! They’ve gone the opposite way, to where they now fight Jesus more than
any other people. More than any other religion, Jews and Judaism actively FIGHT Christ. They’re
not just neutral, they’re not indifferent, they are actively ANTI-CHRIST! Most of the hate and evil
that can be found in Judiasm, is not from the Bible, it’s from the TALMUD, the writings of their
rabbis and elders supposedly about the Bible; the traditions of men of which Jesus told them, “You
have made the Word of God of none effect through your traditions!” (Mark 7:13) The Jew’s view of
their Talmudic teachings is expressed in “The Jewish Encyclopedia”:

“The Talmud is regarded almost as the supreme authority by the majority of Jews. Even the
Bible is relegated to a secondary place.”

The Talmud itself says:

“The words of the elders are more important than the words of the Prophets.” (Treatise
Berachoth, i.4.)

Regarding Jesus Christ, “The Jewish Encyclopedia” tells us:

“It is the tendency of Jewish legends in the Talmud, the Midrash” (the sermons in the
synagogues) “and in the Life of Jesus Christ (Toledoth Jeshua) that originated in the Middle Ages,
to belittle the person of Jesus by ascribing to Him illegitimate birth, magic, and a shameful death.
He is generally alluded to as ‘that anonymous one’, ‘liar’, ‘impostor’, or ‘bastard’.”

These “sacred” writings of the Jews also refer to Jesus as a “fool”, “sorcerer”, “profane person”,
“idolater”, “dog”, “child of lust”, and much worse. The Jews’ wish to conceal from the outer world
that which they teach led to the censoring of the above- referred-to passages of the Talmud during
the 17th century. Knowledge of the Talmud had become fairly widespread then and the
embarrassment thus caused to the rabbis and elders led to the following edict (translated from the
original Hebrew by P.L.B. Drach, who was brought up in a Talmudic school and later became
converted to Christianity): top of page

“This is why we enjoin you, under pain of excommunication major, to print nothing in future
editions, whether of the Mishna or of the Gemara, which relates whether for good or evil to the acts
of Jesus the Nazarene, and to substitute instead a circle like this: ‘O’, which will warn the rabbis and
schoolmasters to teach the young these passages only ‘viva voce’ (by word of mouth). By means of
this precaution the followers of the Nazarene will have no further pretext to attack us on this
subject.” (Decree of the Judaist Synod which met in Poland in 1631.)

Although the Jews today are as anti-Christ as they’ve ever been, they’ve been so clever in their
propaganda, they have even sold the Christians on the idea that they are God’s special “chosen
people”! The preferred Bible that most fundamental American Christians use today is the “Scofield”
version, which is just full a false doctrines and interpretations trying to prove that the Jews are God’s
people. It’s shocking to realise that actual Christians are now so deceived by the Jews that they’ve
allowed them to kick the Bible and God and prayer out of the publik schools! They don’t even see
what is going on!

Just think! – Millions of Christians are now supporting the people of the Antichrist! In fact, some of
them are the staunchest friends of “ISRAEL”! The cruel, anti-Christ leaders of “Israel” who have
STOLEN an entire country from its rightful owners, are now saying that the Fundamentalist
CHRISTIANS of America are their greatest friends and staunchest supporters! A 1985 “Washington
Post” article cites a good example showing how duped and deceived many of these Christians are:

“Rev. Falwell (popular American preacher and leader of the so-called “Moral Majority”) told the
conservative Rabbinical Assembly at their March 13 Miami session, ‘Twenty-five years ago many of
us were saying this is a Christian republic.’ He added, ‘NOW we say “JUDEO-Christian” republic.
There is a spirit of pluralism that did not exist then. We have had our excesses’, Mr. Falwell said,
‘and we can only say we’re sorry and we’ll try and ‘do better’. He promised to ‘mobilise 70 million
conservative Christians for Israel and against “anti-Semitism”. Rabbi Marc Tanenbaum of the
American Jewish Committee commented after the Miami session, in which he participated, ‘It was
thrilling to watch Jerry Falwell become a born-again American.'” top of page

Another “Washington Post” article said,

“Embracing Abraham’s Covenant as fervently as the most impassioned Zionists, the burgeoning
Evangelical Christian movement in the United States is fast becoming one of Israel’s most potent
allies in its conflict with the Arab world. An aide to Mr. Menachem Begin said that the Evangelicals
“are a pillar that Israel has in the United States. They number ten times the Jews in America, and
they are outspoken. Naturally, we look KINDLY on what they are doing.”

Imagine, Menachem BEGIN and his ilk “looking kindly” on the CHRISTIANS of America! Begin,
Yitzak Shamir, Ariel Sharon and the other Jewish TERRORISTS who now rule “Israel” are as
ruthless and anti-Christ as anyone could possibly be! Begin is the former leader of the terrorist
organisation, IRGUN, and he personally claimed responsibility for blowing up the King David
Hotel in Jerusalem, killing over ninety innocent civilians. It was Begin, who in April 1948, ordered
and led the Irgun attack on the unarmed Arab village of Deir Yasin in Palestine, murdering 254
helpless men, women, and children! The incident received scant news coverage in the West,
although “Time” magazine did report:

“Jewish terrorists of the Stern Gang and Irgun Zvai Leumi stormed the village of Deir Yasin
and butchered everyone in sight. The corpses of 250 Arabs, mostly women and small children,
were later found tossed in wells.”

This atrocity so shocked and terrified the surrounding Arab communities, that as news of it spread,
they immediately abandoned their homes, farms and villages, and fled into the desert, warned by the
Israelis that the same fate would befall them. Today 40 YEARS LATER, literally MILLIONS of
homeless Christian and Muslim Palestinians are suffering in squalor, poverty, and deprivation in
“refugee camps” in the Arab nations bordering Israel. Boasting in Tel Aviv during an election
campaign in 1950, Begin claimed credit for the foundation of the Zionist State through his great
“military victory” at DEIR YASIN:

“Irgun’s contribution to Israel was DEIR YASIN, which caused the Arabs to leave the country and
make room for the newcomers. Without Deir Yasin and the subsequent Arab rout, the present
government could not absorb one-tenth of the immigrants.”

It’s hard to believe that CHRISTIANS could actually support and rally around someone like
Menachem Begin! – How easily the Jews have been able to deceive them! They’ve been duped worse
than anybody! Jesus told the Jewish leaders of His day that they were “whited sepulchres full of dead
men’s bones! – Clean on the OUTSIDE of the platter, but WITHIN were full of FILTH and ROT
and ALL uncleanliness!” (Mat 23:25-27) They are IMPOSTORS, Scribes, Pharisees,
HYPOCRITES! Pretending to be so just and righteous, they’ve used their international political and
economic clout to steal an entire COUNTRY away from the poor Palestinians who’d lived there for
almost 2,000 years!

The whole thing is a LIE of the Devil! He’s DECEIVED ALMOST THE WHOLE WORLD into
believing that they’re the “chosen people” returning to their “promised land”. But they are
IMPOSTORS! Jewish source after Jewish source document this. Consider the JEWISH Historian
Nathan M. Pollock who by 1966 had devoted 40 of his 64 years trying to prove at least 6 out of 10
ISRAELIS and 9 out of 10 Jews in the Western Hemisphere HAVE NO SEMITE BLOOD! He and
a host of others have gathered an INCREDIBLE amount of documentation on this FACT! Consider
this when you see the media or someone who is too ignorant to know better labeling someone for
criticizing the Jews as “anti-Semite”. In FACT, the Jews are the most ANTI-SEMITIC PEOPLE the
world has ever known. They are relentless in their persecution, torture, and murder of the Arabs,
TRUE SEMITIC people who are the direct descendants of Abraham. top of page

Also consider what the Jewish historian/writer Arthur Koestler has to say on page 17 of his awesome
and enlightening book, “The Thirteenth Tribe”:

“The large majority of Jews after World War II in the world, were of Eastern origin-and thus
perhaps mainly of Khazar origin. If so, this would mean that their ancestors came not from the
Jordan, but from the Volga; not from the Canaan but from the Caucausus, once believed to be the
cradle of the Aryan race. Genetically, they are more closely related to the Hun, Uigur and Magyar
tribes than to the seed of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob. Should this turn out to be the case, then the
term anti-Semitic would be VOID OF MEANING, based on a MISAPPREHENSION shared by
both killers and victims. The story of the Khazar Empire, as it slowly emerges from the past, begins
to look like the most cruel HOAX which history has ever perpetrated.” [Indeed, Mr. Koestler went
on to provide intense proof of ALL of this and much more!]

God doesn’t need us to promote Israel. Anyone who believes that the ZIONIST STATE of Israel set
up by this One World Conspiracy is the same as the NATION of ISRAEL referred to in Scriptures,
IS MISERABLY DECEIVED the way Christ warned us in Scriptures that “MANY would be”.
ANY Christian preacher who actively teaches this FALSE DOCTRINE is also either miserably
deceived or he is outright LYING, and may God have mercy on him. The Seed of Abraham IS NOT
THE SAME AS the so-called and self-styled “Jews” of today!! [See Rev 2:9; 3:9 – MANY other
Scripture verses confirm this also.]

Jesus Himself told them, “Ye are of your father the DEVIL, and the lusts of your father ye will do!
He was a murderer from the beginning, and abode not in the truth, because there is no truth in him!”
(Jn 8:44) They have tried to ruthlessly cast out the TRUE children of God in Palestine, the Christian
Palestinians, and to establish their own “Messianic Kingdom” in modern-day so-called “Israel”!
What a travesty of justice and mockery of the Truth!

The Jews have now got most of the Christians so deceived and so blinded and so deafened by their
propaganda, that they follow along, tag along, like they’re on a leash. “Gentile dogs” is exactly what
the Jews call the “Goyim”, and they’re certainly on the leash now, trotting along right behind,
assisting the anti-Semitic Jews promote the Godless STATE of Israel and her MURDERERS . . .
going everywhere the Jews go, “barking and yapping” exactly what they want them to say and doing
exactly as they want them to do!

The Christians of this world are going to wake up one of these days and find out what a big mistake
they made in giving the Mideast to the Jews! – And in giving their OWN countries to the Jews!
When the Jews finally get in FULL control and show their true colors, particularly under the
ANTICHRIST, then some of these Christians are going to wake up to the FACT that they made a
big mistake in backing the Jews who one day soon will openly show themselves to be the very forces
of the Antichrist himself! – But by then, for many, it will be too late! top of page

Christian Left Veers on Israel After Jews Helped in a Crisis

Rev. Campbell

National Council of Churches Sign Onto Campaign Against Jerusalem

It Wasn’t Our Money, Insists AJCommittee


December 27, 1996

top of page

WASHINGTON – An advertisement placed by liberal Protestant groups calling for an end to Israel’s sovereignty over
Jerusalem is threatening to erode the interfaith cooperation that led to last summer’s fabled Jewish-Christian joint effort on the
rebuilding of burnt black churches.

The general secretary of the National Council of the Churches of Christ in the USA, the Rev. Joan Brown Campbell, who
signed the ad, appeared in June with Rabbi David Saperstein at a press conference in New York to announce that the Union of
American Hebrew Congregations would assist in reconstructing the arson-damaged churches. Her organization, a leading voice
for the Christian left, took out joint newspaper advertisements with the American Jewish Committee to draw attention to the
church burnings, and in August she traveled with the AJCommittee’s Rabbi A. James Rudin and other religious leaders to
rebuild a church in Tennessee with President Clinton.

Now those same rabbis are expressing disappointment at the Rev. Campbell, the National Council of Churches and the other
Christian groups that placed a full-page advertisement in the Dec. 21 number of The New York Times. Under the title
“Christians Call for a Shared Jerusalem,” the ad says, “Jerusalem at peace cannot belong exclusively to one people, one
country, or one religion.” Jewish leaders say they were not consulted in advance of the ad. They warned that the statement
might hurt the delicate Middle East peace process as well as relations between Christians and Jews in America.

“It is a major disappointment that erodes the level of confidence necessary to have really close, functioning, coalition
relationships,” Rabbi Saperstein said.

He said the peace process now is at a precarious stage over issues like Hebron and Palestinian Arab autonomy. The parties to
the process agreed to leave discussion of Jerusalem to the end of the talks, he said, and to inject the Holy City into the
discussion now would be counterproductive. “Whatever one thinks of the merits of the message, the choice to put this message
out right now is clearly ill-advised and likely to undermine the peace process,” Rabbi Saperstein said.

Rabbi Rudin also expressed dismay at the timing of the ad. “It’s aimed at the Netanyahu government, it’s aimed at an Israeli
government,” he said. “It’s really a one-sided statement….It’s just very negative.” Rabbi Rudin said the ad’s signers were not
calling for the internationalization of Jerusalem before 1967, when Israel captured the eastern part of the city from Jordan. He
emphasized that the

AJCommittee had donated no money to the National Council of the Churches of Christ in the USA, and he said that, while
cooperating with liberal Protestant groups on domestic issues, AJCommittee often differs with those groups on international
matters. Likewise, the organization may cooperate with evangelical Christian groups on some international matters but differ on
domestic policy.

top of page

‘Naive and Ill-informed’

“It certainly does not represent the views of all Christians,” said the secretary-treasurer of the National Christian Leadership
Conference, the Rev. William Harter. The Rev. Harter, pastor of the Presbyterian Church of Falling Spring in Chambersburg,
Pa., called the views expressed in the ad “naive” and “ill-informed.”

The Rev. Harter said that in view of 1,900 years of Christian anti-Semitism and the effects of the Crusades against Jews,
Muslims and Eastern Christians, “It is especially unbecoming for Christian leaders to be dictating to Jews and Muslims what
solutions they should come up with.”

For his part, Rabbi Saperstein rejected the suggestion that UAHC donations to the council of churches’ restricted fund for
rebuilding burnt churches had in any way subsidized the ad.

The ad includes a coupon to return to “Churches for Middle East Peace” and listed an address here for the organization in the
same building occupied by the Washington offices of the National Council of the Churches, the American Baptist Churches,
USA, Church of the Brethren, the Mennonite Central Committee, the Presbyterian Church (USA), the Unitarian Universalist
Association, the United Church of Christ and the United Methodist Church. Those groups signed the ad, as did the American
Friends Service Committee, the Christian Church (Disciples of Christ), the Episcopal Church, the Evangelical Lutheran Church
in America, the Friends Committee on National Legislation, the Maryknoll Fathers and Brothers and the Catholic Conference
of Major Superiors of Men’s Institutes. Another signer is James Akins, who is suing the Federal Election Commission with a
group of former American officials to force the FEC to take action against the pro-Israel lobby, Aipac.

The coupon says, “I believe the U.S. Senate Foreign Relations Committee should raise and recommend the concept of a
shared Jerusalem during confirmation of the next U.S. Secretary of State.”

Rabbi Rudin described Churches for Middle East Peace as “uniformly unfriendly to Israel,” and he characterized the signers of
the ad as “a heavily liberal Protestant group” that had little representation of the Catholic or evangelical Christians. “It does not
represent the broad cross-section of all the Christian community,” he said.

The director of Churches for Middle East Peace, Corrine Whitlatch, said the ad was timed to coincide with Christmas, when
people would be interested in a Christian perspective on Jerusalem. She said the ad was not intended to hurt the peace process
or interfaith cooperation. “We hope that our Jewish colleagues can see this ad as a constructive step forward, one that does not
threaten Israel’s interests and claims on Jerusalem,” she said.

Ms. Whitlatch said that the Rev. Campbell had been “personally very supportive” of the ad. She said that while many Jews
might have preferred that her group remain silent on the issue of Jerusalem, such a posture was “just not feasible” because of
pressure from Christians in the Middle East.

The Rev. Campbell did not return a phone call seeking comment.

top of page

‘Confusion and Division’

Abraham Foxman, the national director of the Anti-Defamation League, which also participated in the effort to rebuild burnt
black churches, drafted a letter to all of the signers of the advertisement. “We are saddened that religious leaders who are
charged with bringing spiritual understanding and healing to their communities and the world are now spreading confusion and
division regarding this most sensitive issue,” wrote Mr. Foxman, who referred to the ad as an “unhelpful intrusion.”

The Conference of Presidents of Major American Jewish Organizations huddled early Monday to craft a response to the ad.
Malcolm Hoenlein, executive vice president of the Conference, called the ad “very disturbing,” noting that several member
organizations have worked with groups that signed the ad.

The Conference plans no ad to respond to the one placed by Churches for Middle East Peace, but it does plan to develop
talking points on the subject and to contact Senator Helms and the Rev. Campbell, said one president who participated in the
call. The response will probably emphasize the ill treatment suffered by Christians when Jerusalem was under Arab control.


by Professor Revilo P. Oliver (August 1991), Liberty Bell Magazine top of page

Christianity is still one of the cardinal factors in any reasonable estimate of our present
plight. It is certainly more important than economics, and it made possible the alien capture
and occupation of the United States.

The Christian churches fall into two categories. The Protestant sects necessarily depend for
their authority on a belief that the Bible was divinely inspired and is therefore literally
accurate. This basis of their religion was gradually eroded over the past century. With few
noteworthy exceptions, (1) the major Protestant churches have slyly but effectively replaced
their Bible with the “social gospel” of the Marxian Reformation, relying on the fecklessness
or gullibility of their congregations to overlook the spiritual swindle. They have thus
become religiously, as well as intellectually, fraudulent.

(1. The principle exceptions are the Missouri Synod of the Lutherans, which is now in the
hands of a bureaucracy that is bent on debasing it to the level of the “main-line” Lutheran
churches (cf. *Liberty Bell*, July 1990, pp. 16-25); the much smaller Wisconsin Synod, which
has troubles of its own; small groups of Presbyterians, headed by Dr. Rousas J. Rushdoony,
and Anglicans, headed by the late Bishop Dees, who try to preserve the essentials of their
religion; and the Mormons, who have supplemental Scriptures of their own, but have serious
internal dissension (cf. *Liberty Bell*, July 1989, pp. 13-37) and are increasingly
vulnerable to attacks on their new gospels (cf. *Liberty Bell(, December 1989, pp. 10-28.)

The Roman Catholic Church was less vulnerable because less dependent on the Bible, which, for
many centuries, it forbade laymen to read. It claims to represent an apostolic succession
from the incarnate god of Christianity, and until quite recently, it, by far the largest of
Christian denominations, exhibited a monolithic solidarity that made it seem impregnable. (2)
Then, only a few years ago, it was suddenly shattered by an internal revolution, as sudden
and drastic as the Jews’ Bolshevik revolution in Russia, and far more suprising to observers
of world affairs.

(2. In *America’s Decline*, pp. 78-79, I described the Church as it appeared in 1955 to
observers who, having no religion, could consider the problem objectively and even had the
benefit of information that had been available only through military intelligence, including
secret communications between the Vatican and its branches in several parts of the world.)

It was a ‘palace revolution.’ What had been the Church’s great strength became its fatal
weakness. When the conspirators captured the Vatican, they became the masters of all their
subordinates in the regular Church and in the monastic orders, from archbishops to parish
priests to yet unordained postulants and students in seminaries. By the power of
excommunication they could deprive any dissident of his livelihood by preventing him from
practicing the only art he knew. It required great faith and great courage even to question
the dictates of the revolutionary r‚gime.

Archbishops, of course, were persons of some consequence, accustomed to luxury suited to
their exalted position, and if any of them was sufficiently interested in the Church’s
doctrine to resent the change, it is likely that he was kept in line by threats sweetened by
generous bribes. Malcontents and soft-spoken dissidents within the Roman Curia were tolerated
until they were eliminated or cowed by terrorism after the murder of John Paul I in 1989. (3)
Conscientious priests, unless able to escape notice, had no alternative but to leave the
Church and seek other means of earning a living. Many of them did, including two with whom I
was aquainted. I have seen an estimate that throughout the world 100,000 priests left the
apostate Church, but I hesitate to accept that figure.

(3. There can be no reasonable doubt that the Pope was murdered, although the motive for the
crime remains obscure. I have referred more than once to David Yallin’s sensational book, *In
God’s Name*, but I have only recently received a copy of a work by Piers Compton, *The Broken
Cross* (Bullsbrook, West Australia; Veritas, 1984). He appears not to have seen Yallin’s
book, but was able to consult letters from twenty-two prelates concerning the death of the
Pope, collected in a volume entitled *Lettres de Rome sur le singulier tr‚pas de Jean-Paul I*
by a Parisian journalist under the pseudonym Jean Jacques Thierry. The volume was suppressed
almost immediately after it was published. The Pope died during the night, his call for help
having been inexplicably ignored. In the morning, his corpse was found at 5:30 and by 9:30
embalmers had completed their work, having removed the vital organs that would be needed for
an autopsy and reportedly destroyed them! This fact was apparently unknown to the persons
who, during the following days, demanded an autopsy that had been made impossible. That
indecent precaution establishes the fact of murder.)

Religiously, the Church committed suicide. Every ‘revealed’ religion must profess to be based
on transcendental truth that is immutable and eternal, revealed, directly or indirectly, by
an eternal, immutable, and infallible god. The Roman Church claimed to have been founded by
an Apostle expressly delegated for that purpose by its incarnate god, and Pius XII, the last
Pontifex Maximus before the new r‚gime, was the two hundred and sixty-second in an apostolic
succession, representing, it was claimed, an unbroken tradition and a doctrine that had been
received from the divinely-appointed Apostle.

As every man capable of logical thought saw at once, the radical changes in doctrine made by
the new r‚gime necessarily implied that either (a) the Church’s god had ignorantly,
irrationally, or maliciously lied to his Vicars on earth for nineteen centuries, or (b) the
two hundred and sixty-two Vicars had misrepresented the wishes and commands of their
celestial principal.

The drastic changes did not make the Church simply explode, because faith commonly precludes
logical thought, and in the Roman Church, the mass of votaries had long been accustomed to
believe whatever they were told by their priest and unquestioningly to follow his directions.

When the Church was “modernized,” as though it were an old house or an obsolete railroad,
many ostentatious changes in practice may have been partly devised to conceal vital changes
in doctrine. Most churches, for example, were stripped of their ornaments and made as bare
and uninteresting as churches of the most Puritanical Protestant sects. The Latin mass, which
was impressive when well performed, was replaced with vernacular gabble that was tediously
flat and boring when it was not ludicrous. Priests were converted into Protestant ministers,
delivering commonplace sermons. Some venerated Saints were unceremoniously tossed out onto
the scrap heap. But all these changes were relatively superficial.

If one considered the new doctrine critically, one immediately saw what had been the cardinal
and most drastic change. The attitude toward the Jews that the Christian god had presumably
ordained for nineteen centuries was reversed. The change was neatly illustrated by the
Cardinal who is believed most likely to become the next Pope. He boasts that he is a faithful
and practicing Jew, and brazenly asserts that Christianity is merely a kind of auxiliary
church by which deserving *goyim* are admitted to some of the privileges God irrevocably
bestowed on his Chosen People. (4)

(4. See *Liberty Bell*, May 1987, pp. 6-14.)

It was obvious, therefore, that the Roman Catholic Church had been captured by the Jews and
would be operated in their interests. Strangely enough, this fact was generally ignored by
even the most vehement adversaries of the “modernization.” (5)

(5. Mr. Compton, in the work cited in Note 3 *supra*, attributes the capture of the Church to
a conspiracy that included Weishaupt’s Illuminati, Aleister Crowley’s Satanism, and other
secret societies, including, of course, Freemasonry, along the lines well known from the
writings of Nesta Webster, Christina Stoddard (“Inquire Within”), Lady Queensboro, and many
others. He carefully disregards the Jews, but a sheet reproduced from typewriting and of
uncertain provenance, enclosed with the copy of his book sent to me, identifies Wojtyia (John
Paul II) as a Jew, son of a Kikess named Wanda Katz.)

Since I am certain that Christianity is a fundamental fact that must be taken into account in
any worthwhile consideration of our present situation or attempt to foresee our probable
future, I have devoted many pages in *Liberty Bell* to that subject, with special attention
to the Roman Catholic Church, the largest and most influential of all Christian
denominations. Most recently, in “The Stolen Church,” December 1990, I recommended the *The
New Montinian Church*, an impressive English translation of an important work by the Reverend
D. Joaquin S enz y Arriaga, and in “The Vacant See,” April-May 1991, I reported what were
evidently the conclusions of a canon lawyer that the Papacy had been vacant since the death
of Pius XII in 1958.

I was pleased when my opinion about the cardinal importance of the Roman Church in our plight
today was corroborated from an unexpected source, Mr. Lawrence Patterson’s *Criminal
Politics* (P.O. Box 37812, Cincinnati, Ohio [45222]; monthly, $187.50 per annum).

*Criminal Politics* is devoted exclusively to finance and to consideration of the ways in
which Americans may conserve what they have saved and still own, in spite of the Federal
government. Since in countries like the United States and Soviet Russian economic laws have
been nullified by a tyrannical government, it is necessary to consider political forces, and
that includes Catholicism. The issue for April contains (pp. 12-17) an article entitled “The
New World Order: Catholicism and the Zionist War Against Our Cultural Standards.”

After noting that the Vatican was once a strenuous opponent of the Communists, and now is
virtually allied with them in promoting the “New World Order,” Mr. Patterson takes his
departure from an astonishingly candid article published in what was then one of the most
widely circulated periodicals, *Look*, (6) 25 January 1966. It was written by the magazine’s
senior editor, Joseph Roddy, and entitled “How the Jews Changed Catholic Thinking.”

(6. The paid circulation of *Look* at that time was over 7,500,000 copies of each issue; the
magazine did not suffer from the indiscreet revelation–at least not immediately. In 1968,
its circulation had increased by 200,000, but financial difficulties made it cease
publication in October 1971, although its circulation had increased to almost 8,000,000 in

Mr. Roddy, after noting that the American Jewish Committee and B’nai B’rith put pressure on
the Vatican Council to alter Catholic doctrine in their favor, reported that the real author
of the Council’s surrender to Judaism was a French Jew named Jules Isaac, who co”perated with
a “Fifth Column” (7) of Marrano traitors in the Council, including the slimy Cardinal Bea,
but the success of the work of subversion was to be attributed to a “priest spy,” a Jesuit
who served on the staff of Bea and shuttled back and forth between the Vatican and the
American Jewish Committee in New York.

(7. I do not like to see ‘Fifth Column’ used in this sense, a perversion of its original
meaning. When the Spanish army was delivering Spain from Judaeo-Communist terror in 1936,
General Franco, on whom the command had devolved, remarked that four columns of his troops
were converging on Madrid, in which there was a ‘fifth column’ composed of the decent
Spaniards in that territory, who, while impotent against the power of the Communist
government, necessarily sympathized with the army that was fighting to free them and would
assist its efforts whenever they feasibly could. A ‘fifth column,’ therefore, is not composed
of traitors, but of patriots held in subjection by an alien power.)

According to Mr. Roddy, the decree of the Vatican Council drafted by Jules Isaac “would have
gone down early,” but for the “covert help” of the “priest-spy.”

That seems implausible. It is hard to see how the “priest-spy” could have had the pivotal
r”le attributed to him. When Roncalli, who, under the laws of the Church, was not even a
Catholic, slithered onto the See of Rome as John XXIII, his election must have been procured
by accomplices in the College of Cardinals, (8) and he almost certainly had *in petto* a
scheme for capturing and Judaizing the Church, probably including the Vatican Council that he
convened in 1962 and guided through its intermittent sessions to its consummation of the
revolutionary take-over in 1965. Mr. Patterson notes that after Roncalli was elected Pope in
1958, the larger newspapers in this country dropped their neutral or mildly hostile attitude
toward the Catholic Church and suddenly blossomed with bouquets for “good Pope John.” The
Jewish Lords of the American press must have received from their superiors advice that
“Roncalli is our boy.”

(8. When the Cardinals meet to elect a new pope and are immured, there is always a period of
frantic competition between various aspirants and their supporters, and political trading and
retrading of votes until a compromise is reached or, if there is an unresolvable deadlock, an
interim pontiff is elected to hold office while the factions regroup. A few wily intriguers,
especially if well supplied with cash, can often determine the outcome of an election.)

The capture of the Church had already been planned before the Council got under way, and I
cannot imagine how the “priest-spy” could have done more than arrange matters of detail or
transport cash when he served as liaison between his Jewish employers in New York and
important members of the Council. Only if millions or billions of dollars in real money were
needed to consolidate the position of Roncalli and his accomplices, and were supplied from
New York, could the messenger who delivered the bribes be said to have determined the
decisions of the Council, but Mr. Roddy says nothing about that.

Mr. Roddy did not name the “priest-spy,” who, he said, pretended to be a conservative
Catholic but was really “100%” in the Zionist interest and might himself be a Jew disguised
as a Jesuit. He provided, however, a series of more or less enigmatic clues to the man’s

Mr. Patterson reports that his research has identified the “priest-spy” as Malachi Martin,
alias (by his own admission) Michael Serafian, alias (by implication) F.F. Cartus, and
(therefore) alias Timothy Fitzharris-O’Boyle.

Martin’s career corresponds to the clues given by Roddy. He was a Jesuit, had been a
professor in the Pontifical Biblical Institute in Rome (reputed to be a scholar of Semitic
languages and an expert on the Dead Sea Scrolls), had migrated to New York, written for the
Jewish periodical, *Commentary*, under an alias, a book, *The Pilgrim*, under another alias,
and under his own name many articles as a “conservative Catholic” for Buckley’s *National
Review*, of which he was, for a time, the Religious Editor. Although neither Roddy nor Mr.
Patterson mentions the even more significant fact, Malachi Martin claims to have been an
intimate friend and advisor of Roncalli.

According to various reports, Martin, after he established himself in this country, left the
priesthood and married. He has certainly produced under his own name an amazing number of
presumably highly profitable books, all aimed at Catholics who have not abandoned the
traditional faith of the Church. Whether he continues to write under pseudonyms, I do not

Now if Martin did indeed play an important r”le in betraying the Church into the hands of its
inveterate enemies, he certainly knew what he was doing. Piers Compton quotes him as having
predicted, at the time the Vatican Council completed its work of subversion in December 1965,
“Well before the year 2000, there will no longer be a religious institute recognizable as the
Roman Catholic and Apostolic Church of today…. There will be no centralized control, no
uniformity in teaching, no universality in practice or worship, prayer, sacrifice, and

He believed that his prophecy was being fulfilled. In his *The Jesuits, the Society of Jesus,
and the Betrayal of the Roman Catholic Church* (New York, Simon & Schuster, 1987), he wrote:

‘The extent of the damage produced in the Church….after 1965 can be gauged a mere twenty
years later. Pope John Paul II now presides over a Church organization that is in shambles, a
rebellious and decadent clergy, an ignorant and recalcitrant body of bishops, and a confused
and divided assembly of believers. The Roman Catholic Church, which used to present itself as
the One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church, appears now as a pluralistic, permissive,
ecumenical, and evolutionary ecclesial group.’ (9)

(9. In this book, he, a former Jesuit, accuses the Jesuits of having become a gang of
conspiratorial Marxists engaged in promoting, under the guise of religion, a Communist
dictatorship. He even avers that the Jesuits in the United States drew up detailed plans for
the installation of “Maoist Marxism” in this country.)

In all writings published under his own name, so far as I know, Malachi Martin has
consistently taken the position of a Catholic faithful to the Church’s doctrine and
traditions, estimating that about 40% of the present College of Cardinals are Christians,
ridiculing American bishops who jabbered about “ending poverty” and “sharing the wealth” by
pointing out that the Roman Church is the wealthiest body in the world, with assets totaling
hundreds of billions of dollars and possibly amounting to two *trillion* dollars
($2,000,000,000,000), and insisting that “Christ never singled out the proletariat with a
preferential opinion in their favor.” The mission of the Church is exclusively spiritual and
it has no competence or authority to pronounce on matters of economics or politics. (10)

(10. For example, in an article in *National Review*, 5 January 1979, which I have consulted
in my files of that publication, he wrote: “Over the last fifteen years, the Roman Catholic
Church in the United States, under the leadership and authority of its bishops, has become
mainly two things. It is, first and most stridently, a jumbled shop-front jammed with a
motley array of political issues, civil squabbles, sociological experiments, and
psychological theories. _ Second, and more poignantly, it is a gristmill grinding down the
hope and enthusiasm of faithful followers who know that their bishops have neglected the
purity of their faith and the practice of religion in their Church, in favor of such issues
as environmental pollution, ethnic rights, land distribution, the Panama Canal, Rhodesian
chrome, and the evils of U.S. Capitalism.” In the remainder of the article, he does not
explicitly identify all these activities as serving Communist ends, but rather conspicuously
avoids considerations that would *lƒcher le mot*.)

I have not seen his latest book, *Keys of the Blood* (New York, Simon & Schuster, 1990),
which was reviewed by Paul A. Fisher in *Christian News*, 3 June 1991, and criticized by Mr.
Patterson in the article I have cited. In this book, Martin, somewhat at variance with his
earlier pronouncements, tells his readers that the world is now the prize which each of three
reciprocally hostile organizations are tying to gain for itself, viz.:

‘(a) A disintegrating Soviet Empire led by Mikhail Gorbachev; (b) transnationalists and
internationalists (a generic characterization for international bankers and businesses
affiliated with the Council on Foreign Affairs (CFR) and the Trilateral Commission (TLC), and
(c) a deteriorating Roman Catholic Church, the principal institution of Christendom, led by
Pope Paul II.’ (11)

(11. I quote from Mr. Fisher’s review. Note that there is no mention of Jews, which would not
have been tactful in a book published by Jews; but did the glaring omission have another
motive? I gather from Mr. Fisher that Martin expects a “direct intervention of God” during
the lifetime of the present Pope!)

That statement is the principal basis for Mr. Patterson’s denunciation of Martin as a “fake
conservative” and “double agent” of the Zionists, and he marshals abundant proofs that
Wojtyia (John Paul II) is co”perating so closely with both Soviets, the “Trilateralists” and
the Zionists in foisting the “New World Order” on the civilized nations to reduce them to
barbaric slavery that the Pope must be considered a servant or accomplice of all of the three
aspects of what must be a single force bent on our enslavement and eventual extinction. He
reasons that Martin’s book must be intended to confuse traditional Catholics and other
readers by deceiving them about our enemies and creating the deceptive illusion that three
tentacles of the octopus are fighting each other.

I am not here concerned with establishing Martin’s guilt or innocence, and I certainly shall
not waste time in collecting and analysing the many books and articles published under his
own name or in ascertaining whether or not the continues to publish divergent works under
pseudonyms, but I shall point out that, so far as I can tell from the reviews, he is guilty
of a certain duplicity in concealing in his latest book conclusions that he has stated

In an address reported by the *Rocky Mountain News*, 8 October 1982 (reproduced
photographically in *Christian News* he stated explicitly that “The Christian church is
decaying, has nothing to say, and is on the way out.” He added that the other great religions
of the world, Buddhism, Islam, Hinduism, Shintoism, “are headed in the same direction as
Christianity and even faster.” He predicted the imposition of “a worldwide religion with one
structure and institutions,” managed by “one great bureaucracy. And out of it will emerge the
ultimate disaster.”

What is crucially significant in that speech is that he explicitly affirmed that the Jews’
religion (the basis of their racial unity) is not in the least subject to change or decay and
will always endure triumphantly. “It is irradicable, (12) indestructible,” he affirmed,
“there is no decay and *nothing can destroy the soul of Judaism.* (My italics.)

(12. He means *uneradicable*.)

There you have it. There, stated with blinding clarity for all who think while reading, is an
indication of who will own and enslave the world of tomorrow. No author, unwilling to bring
upon himself the terrorists of the Jews’ government in Washington, could have stated the fact
more explicitly.

According to Mr. Lawrence, Martin, in his new book, certainly concealing or reversing his
belief in an “ultimate disaster,” not only regards the New World Order as inevitable, but
lauds it a “Grand Design of God.” And he says, “As to the time factor involved, those of us
who are under 70 will see at least the basic structure of the new world government
installed…. Those of us who are under 40 will surely live under its legislative, executive,
and judicial authority and control.”

And he could have added that Americans who are now under five will surely grow up to be
imbecile creatures, so well trained that whenever they see or smell a Sheeny, they will
automatically drop to their knees and knock their foreheads three times on the pavement in
veneration of their living gods.

Jews Gave Jerry Falwell a Lear jet for his services on their behalf

In 1977 the Likud party under Menachem Begin came to power on an expansionist Zionist platform using biblical phraseology to justify the settlement of the West Bank. It was Begin for example who first renamed Israel and the Occupied Territories as Judaea and Samaria. In America the Jewish lobby realised the potential significance of wooing the political endorsement of the powerful 50-60 million Evangelical block vote through their fundamentalist leadership. With this in mind, in 1979, the Israeli government honoured Jerry Falwell with the Jabotinsky Award in appreciation of his support of Israel. They also provided him with a Lear jet to assist in his work on their behalf.


top of page

Archived for Educational Purposes only Under U.S.C. Title 17 Section 107
by Jew Watch Library at www.jewwatch.com


In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, any copyrighted work in the Jew Watch Library is archived here under fair use without profit or payment to those who have expressed a prior interest in reviewing the included information for personal use, non-profit research and educational purposes only.
Ref. http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml

If you have additions or suggestions

Email Jew Watch

The Deep State’s Hatred of Trump Is Not the Same as Yours

Posted on Mar 2, 2017

By Paul Street


Last October, three weeks before the presidential election, I wrote an essay for left progressives titled “The Ruling Class’s Hatred of Trump is Different Than Yours.” People on the left, I noted, loathed the white-nationalist, quasi-fascist Donald Trump because of his sexism, racism, nativism, authoritarianism, militarism, “law and order” police-state-ism, anti-intellectualism, his regressive arch-plutocracy, fake populism, climate denialism and promise to “deregulate energy” and thereby escalate the petro-capitalist, greenhouse gassing-to-death of life on earth.

The establishment’s contempt for the orange-haired beast, I noted, was different. The nation’s unelected and interrelated dictatorships of money and empire were perfectly willing to live with most, if not all, of what the left hated about Trump. After all, I reasoned, they’d been backing or tolerating most or all of those terrible things under presidents from both major United States parties for decades.

Trump, I wrote, faced ruling-class disdain because he was considered bad for transnational capital and the American empire. For the most part, the “deep state” masters who backed Hillary Clinton did not appreciate The Donald’s blustering promises to roll back the neoliberal “free trade” agenda in the name of the forgotten working class. The foreign policy and “national security” establishment especially hated his criticism of Washington’s long march toward war with Russia.

They did not relish the related threat Trump posed to Brand America. It is longstanding, bipartisan, U.S. ruling-class doctrine that this country is the world’s great beacon and agent of democracy, human rights, justice and freedom. American reality has never matched the doctrine, but smart rulers knew that it would be especially difficult to align those claims with a president like Trump.

As a presidential candidate, Trump openly exhibited racist, nativist, sexist, arch-authoritarian, police-state-ist, Islamophobic, pro-torture, and even neofascist sentiments and values. “If our system of government is an oligarchy with a façade of democratic and constitutional process,” the veteran congressional staffer Mike Lofgren wrote last summer in the preface to his book “The Deep State: The Fall of the Constitution and the Rise of a Shadow Government,” “Trump would not only rip that façade away for the entire world to behold; he would take our system’s ugliest features and intensify them.” They also had policy differences with Trump’s “isolationist” and “anti-trade” rhetoric. That is why the nation’s economic and foreign-policy elites preferred Jeb Bush and Marco Rubio over Trump in the Republican primaries and Hillary Clinton in the general election.

Flash forward to the present. Horrified at the rise of an Insane Clown President who evokes chilling echoes of classic fascism, millions have taken to the streets. The issues that concern the swirling, record-setting crowds that have arisen from coast to coast are evident on their homemade signs.They include women’s and civil rights, climate change, social justice, racism, nativism, the police state, mass incarceration, plutocracy, authoritarianism, immigrant rights, low wages, economic inequality (the top tenth of the upper U.S. 1 percent now owns more wealth than the nation’s bottom 90 percent), hyper-militarism and the devaluation of science and education. The marches and protests are about the threats Trump poses to peace, social justice, the rule of law, livable ecology and democracy.

Meanwhile, the national corporate media and the U.S. intelligence community have been attacking Trump for a very different and strange reason. They have claimed, with no serious or credible evidence, that Trump is, for some bizarre reason, a tool of the Russian state. The charge is as wacky as anything Glenn Beck or, for that matter, Trump (former leader of the preposterous “birther movement”), used to say about President Obama. Citing vague and unsubstantiated CIA reports, The New York Times, The Washington Post and many other forces in the establishment media want Americans to believe that, in Glenn Greenwald’s properly mocking words, “Donald Trump is some kind of an agent or a spy of Russia, or that he is being blackmailed by Russia and is going to pass secret information to the Kremlin and endanger American agents on purpose.”

Beneath the wild and unsubstantiated charge that Trump is some kind of Moscow-controlled Manchurian president is a determination to cripple and perhaps remove Trump because he wants to normalize U.S. relations with Russia. Why, you might ask, would smoothing things over between Washington and Moscow be a terrible thing? It wouldn’t be for everyday Americans who don’t want to see themselves, their children and their grandchildren blown up in a nuclear war over, say, Ukraine (where the Obama administration provocatively helped create a fascist, NATO-affiliated regime on Russia’s western border) or Crimea (where the vast majority of the population welcomed reversion to Russia).

The U.S. power elite—rooted in key deep-state institutions like the Council on Foreign Relations (CFR), the Atlantic Council, the Brookings Institution, The Washington Post and The New York Times—thinks differently. As Mike Whitney recently explained on Counterpunch, Trump’s failure to grasp the necessity of the New Cold War with Russia “threat[ens] … Washington’s broader imperial strategy to control China’s growth, topple Putin, spread military bases across Central Asia, implement trade agreements that maintain the dominant role of western-owned mega-corporations, and derail attempts by Russia and China to link the wealthy EU to Asia by expanding the web of pipeline corridors and high-speed rail that will draw the continents closer together creating the largest and most populous free trade zone the world has ever seen. … The economic integration of Asia and Europe must be blocked to preserve Washington’s hegemonic grip on world power.”

This is CFR-led, U.S. “Open Door” Imperialism 101.


Don’t be fooled by how much CNN’s anchors enjoy broadcasting images of mass anti-Trump popular protests. The U.S. imperial, financial and corporate establishment doesn’t care about the plight of the Standing Rock water and climate protectors, livable ecology, Muslim communities, Latino immigrants, Black Lives Matter activists, poor blacks, civil liberties, the working class (white and nonwhite) or Trump’s recent, insane, budget-busting call for a 10 percent increase in the U.S. military budget.

The Trump presidency is a problem for the American establishment for some very different reasons. He’s a public relations and marketing disaster for Brand USA. How do you sell the United States as a great model and agent of freedom, democracy and cultural diversity when its visible state is captained by vicious, white-nationalist authoritarians like the Twitter-addicted “thin-skinned megalomaniac” Trump and his quasi-fascist “alt-right” Svengali, Steve Bannon?

Trump is seen by many American elites as too stupid, narcissistic and crude to head the world’s most powerful nation. It’s an understandable concern. As The New York Times noted, Trump “spent the first 48 hours of his presidency bickering about the size of the inauguration crowd.”

We’ve never heard a U.S. president say anything as dangerously idiotic as what Trump proclaimed to the nation’s governors on Monday while calling for an over-the-top and dead-in-the-water increase in the Pentagon budget. “We have to start winning wars again. … We never win,” said the new commander in chief, who stands atop a giant nuclear stockpile (the U.S. owns more than 5,100 nuclear warheads) with the capacity to blow the world up many times over. “When I was young, in high school and in college,” the Vietnam-era draft dodger added, “everybody used to say we never lost a war. America never lost. Now, we never win a war.”

Talking so flippantly and childishly about wars and the nation’s need to “win” them—this without even referring to any purportedly legitimate war aims in the nuclear era—is beyond the ruling-class pale. It’s not that the establishment is pacifist or squeamish about killing people. Far from it. The American empire’s body count runs into the many millions over the last half-century alone. But Trump’s juvenile language makes the U.S. look all too transparently like a recklessly daft rogue state, not the wise and “indispensable nation” it has long been purported to be.

Recall Trump’s talk to the CIA on his first full day in office. In a rambling speech broadcast on CNN and other cable news outlets, he complained like a petulant junior high student about the media’s supposed underestimation of the number of people at his inauguration. Then he told stone-faced senior intelligence officials that the U.S. might get another chance to go into Iraq and “get the oil.”

The world shuddered two weeks ago when a U.S. Army officer posed for a photograph with a wealthy patron at Trump’s Mar-a-Lago golf resort while carrying the “nuclear football”—the suitcase that carries the launch codes for the U.S. nuclear arsenal. The new president is going to spend many of his presidential weekends at his opulent Mar-a-Lago resort, where the membership fee doubled to $200,000 after he was elected, and members now have new rules to follow.

George W. Bush also was over his head in the White House. Still, with his longstanding, ruling-class, establishment pedigree and his history as a graduate of Yale’s secret Skull and Bones society, he had the decency and, well, the class, to know his limits and place. He subjected himself to certain rules of conduct imposed by his vice president and other more competent and knowledgeable handlers.

The malignant narcissist and Twitter-addicted Trump is a different breed. He might be able to clean himself up enough to read a semicivilized and half-conciliatory speech to Congress (earning thereby a fantastic description as “presidential” from the noted sycophant Van Jones). Still, he seems unable to stop himself from doing and saying things that shred the veneer of a wise, far-seeing and benevolent American empire.

Then there’s been his related failure to grasp the necessity of focusing his dangerous imperial energies on Russia.

Has Trump and/or the people around him gotten the message on Russia? Perhaps. He agreed to get rid of his incompetent and insufficiently anti-Russian national security adviser, Michael Flynn, under establishment pressure. Flynn’s replacement is Army Lt. Gen. H.R. McMaster, who views Russia as a “hostile revisionist power” that “annex(es) territory, intimidates our allies, develops nuclear weapons, and uses proxies under the cover of modernized conventional militaries.” Two weeks ago, the White House said Russia needs to return Crimea to Ukraine—a preposterous statement that may reflect a newfound willingness for play along with New Cold War rhetoric. In his first annual address to Congress on Tuesday, Trump signaled strong support for Russia’s great antagonist, NATO.

Still, don’t expect the Trump-as-a-tool-of-Russia talk to go away. It’s too irresistible for Democrats to drop. Besides working to delegitimize Trump (something Democrats hope to turn to their advantage in 2018 and 2020), the blame-the-Kremlin narrative helps New Cold Warriors atop both reigning parties keep the heat on Moscow. It helps them hedge in Trump’s lingering promise of rapprochement with Russia.

At the same time, the Russia card helps the corporatists atop the Democratic Party avoid responsibility for blowing the election. After defeating the progressive Democrat Bernie Sanders (who would have defeated Trump) in dubious ways, the neoliberal Democrats ran a hopelessly wooden, Wall Street-captive and corruption-tainted candidate (Hillary Clinton) who couldn’t mobilize enough working- and lower-class voters to defeat the hypernoxious and widely hated Trump. The “Moscow stole it” story line is a fancy version of “the dog ate my homework” for a dismal, dollar-drenched Democratic Party that abandoned the working class and the causes of peace, social justice and environmental sustainability long ago.

The moneyed masters in charge of the “inauthentic opposition” party (the late, left-liberal political scientist Sheldon Wolin’s all-too-accurate description of the Democrats nine years ago) would rather not take a long, hard and honest look at what that political organization has become. It does not want to concede anything to those who dream of turning it into an authentically progressive opposition party. The “Russia did it” imputation works for establishment Democrats hoping to stave off demands from more progressive and populist types (who recently came close to claiming the chairmanship of the Democratic National Committee) in their own party. So much better to blame external others for the richly deserved near-collapse of their party at all levels.

The Russia card also has proved tempting to U.S. progressives who should and may know better. Their understandable passion for seeing Herr Trump humiliated and removed from office has led some of them down a disturbing path. As Gareth Porter has noted, “Many people who oppose Trump for other valid reasons have seized on the shaky Russian accusations because they represent the best possibility for ousting Trump from power.” It’s a big mistake. Porter reflects and warns:

But ignoring the motives and the dishonesty behind the campaign of leaks has far-reaching political implications. Not only does it help to establish a precedent for U.S. intelligence agencies to intervene in domestic politics, as happens in authoritarian regimes all over the world, it also strengthens the hand of the military and intelligence bureaucracies who are determined to maintain the New Cold War with Russia.

Those war bureaucracies view the conflict with Russia as key to the continuation of higher levels of military spending and the more aggressive NATO policy in Europe that has already generated a gusher of arms sales that benefits the Pentagon and its self-dealing officials.

Progressives in the anti-Trump movement are in danger of becoming an unwitting ally of those military and intelligence bureaucracies despite the fundamental conflict between their economic and political interests and the desires of people who care about peace, social justice and the environment.

Do serious progressives committed to democracy, peace and social justice really want to lie down in the same warmongering and pro-surveillance bed as the CIA and the Pentagon? Doing so is bad for their souls and moral integrity. It’s also bad for democracy and for peace to help empower and legitimize the imperial system’s unelected and infamously nefarious deep state “intelligence” bureaucracy, “maybe the only [Washington] faction worse than Donald Trump,” according to Greenwald. As Whitney wisely counsels, “Leftists should avoid the temptation of aligning themselves with groups and agencies that might help them achieve their short-term goal of removing Trump, but ultimately move them closer to a de facto 1984 lock-down police state. Misplaced support for the deep state Russophobes will only strengthen the national security state’s stranglehold on power. That’s not a path to victory, it’s a path to annihilation.”

Take to the streets (and highways, town plazas, fossil-fuel extraction sites, shop floors, assembly halls, airwaves and airports, etc.) against Trump, by all means. But also take to the streets against the grim neoliberal Democrats who opened the barn door for his dangerous presidency and against the unelected “deep state” interests working always to increase the ever-upward concentration of global capitalist wealth and power. We don’t want to bring Trump down just to help install an administration more properly suited to selling and otherwise advancing American empire, inequality and ecocide.