Tuesday, January 15, 2013

Bye, Bye King Abdullah II of Jordan! Welcome to the True Palestine!
Once again, the British –Created-Ersatz-Royal Family Disintegrates with Freedom Protests!
On November 12, 2012  over two thousand young protestors stormed into downtown Amman, the capitol of Jordan to scream the following forbidden words:
“Down Abdullah”, and “the people want the downfall of the regime.”
  These brave words were uttered in the following other cities: Irbid, Tafileh, Maan, Aqaba, Karak, Salt, Zarqa, and Theeban.
  What does this all mean to the world? 
  These words that were inspired by the Jordanian Muslim Brotherhood and the Islamic Action Front and other tribal groups, were punishable by death. 
Once again, what we are now witnessing and will continue to see, is the rightful unwinding of the perverse British Imperial Middle East Strategy of “Divide and Conquer”. 
  As I explained in my Saudi Royal Family blog, that they were not royal, not a family, not really Saudi but Wahabi or Bedwa –Bedouins of the desert and guess what? 
  It’s the same with King Abdullah II of the Royal Hashemite Family of Jordan. 
  First, there is no country called “Jordan”. 
 It’s a created post-Ottoman WWI concoction of British Intelligence to displace the rightful Muslim heir of Saudi Arabia or the area we call Saudi Arabia into another parcel of  even more worthless desert called TransJordan—the country that crossed the Jordan River. 
  But why did the British need to create another useless country which was once part of the 800 Year Old Turkish Ottoman Empire?
This time the reason was far more devious and nefarious for the population of muslims and in particular the rightful Palestinians who occupied this parcel of land for centuries before the British ever set their grubby, rapacious paws on them and their resources. 
This 50 year old, cherubic, exceedingly short King is not really a “King”.   Like the King Faisal and King Saud—there were no “Kingships” in the HOLY KORAN. 
  But what makes Abdullah and his family far more interesting is that they are the true DESCENDANTS of the PROPHET MOHAMMED.  To be precise, he is the 43rd generation direct descendants of the Prophet Mohammed. 
  He is the namesake of King Abdullah I,  his grandfather who was “instructed”  to create the state of “Jordan” by the British government,  intent on maintaining it’s  waning influence in the Middle East.  At the same time, that former ‘terrorist colony’ (as they called the U.S.) was becoming a super power after successfully ‘salvaging,’ for the second time, the Brits from two world wars that they helped initiate. 
So why place the true descendants of the Great Prophet Mohammed, the Hashemites, into a useless piece of land? 
  Like every brutal act that the Imperial Crown committed from Shanghai, to Hong Kong, to Africa and to the entire Middle East, they wanted to make sure that there would never be an insurrection based on religion against the British Colonizers who viciously exploited their subalterns with torture, repression and executions
  All done in the name of Christ and Anglican superiority!
  The British Machiavellian Crown and their military/intelligence transported the Hashemite descendants into an area that is now called Iraq and into an area that was Palestine on the ancient maps and belonged to countless ethnic muslim tribes. This is how the Brits could control them with two completely contrived concepts:
The nation-state and the King!
  Neither one existed in either the area that one poor young Hashemite boy was sent, now called Iraq and nor where the other more dangerous Hashemite was sent to Palestine or what the British conveniently called “Jordan”.
What you  have to understand, is that after WWI , the British and the French [created Lebanon, Syria, etc] carved up the Ottoman Empire in order to serve their needs not the needs of the local denizens. 
  So when the students in Amman or other cities of Jordan, bravely screaming  for the ‘downfall’ of Abdullah, they are not committing ‘treason’ but reigniting their rights as Palestinians to take control of their land as a free people, bereft of the inveterate corruption, suppression, and torture and nonsensical anglo-saxon ideologies that will never have any correspondence to reality in that particular country. 
Jordan, unlike Saudi Arabia, is not blessed by oil which the British extricated safely under their complete auspices, using the fictitious name of the Anglo-American Oil Company.  Leave it to the Brits, that they added the “American” part as soon as they saw us winning WWII. 
  With brutal suppression and these fictitious creations, the Brits, now joined at the hip through our respective ‘crown jewels’ ---our respective intelligence communities with the USA,  became willing co-conspirators exploiting each Middle East muslim country a la Anglo—Saxon Imperial way. 
  What was and is frustrating to the Middle East youth is their disappointment with America whom they believed would help them to be free of an imposed culture that they and we found ‘repugnant’.
  You see everyone in the world know the lessons of the 1776 American Revolution against the Oppressive British by the “American Terrorists”.  So the country that started as ‘terrorist war’ against the major oppressor became not the ‘liberator’ but the ‘other anglo-saxon’ oppressor. 
  From my personal experience in Jordan, I have truthfully never met a group of people who disliked their King more than the Jordanians. 
  First of all, he was not really Jordanian or Palestinian because he could barely speak Arabic . Believe it or not, the leader of a major Arabic country could not speak the proper Arabic language or even a dialect. 
  Then, six years ago, he was considered a ‘puppet of the CIA’ and ‘the Brits’ . 
Now why would they say that to me? 
Let’s look at his background to find the answer. 
 His mother was Antoinette Avril Gardinier, not exactly Arabic in origin (some sources say “Toni” met her future husband on the set of Lawrence of Arabia).  Then, he attended the following non-Arabic schools: St Edmunds’s School, Hindhead, Surrey before moving on to Eagleboro, School and Deerfield Academy in Deerfield, Massachusetts.  Guess who recruited him there? 
  Three letters! You got it.  And also we, the US citizens, paid for his “rarefied” education which I can guarantee, I could not get because of my mongrel pedigree of refugee. Not a qualifier for Deerfield—the school, maybe the landscaper, not even that. 
  But please don’t fret because, Abdullah  “Abbie” attended The Royal Military Academy Sandhurst, in 1980 and was commissioned as a Second Lieutenant in the 13/18th Royal Hussars. 
Any Arabic culture yet? NOPE!
  Then to top off his MI-6 paid-for education, Abbie attended Pembroke College at Oxford University and then, as if he did not have enough Anglo-Saxon schooling,  he attended The Foreign Service School at Georgetown University in Washington DC. 
  Guess who paid for that one? The three letter boys!
Now, you get the idea, that our good non-royal, non-arabic speaking cherub is not really fit for anything except for the sports he happens to enjoy:
Skydiving, Rallyracing, Scuba Diving, etc. 
  Abbie is clearly not fit for any job that requires responsibility, transparency, accountability, or anything resembling maturity. 
  In short, he should not be King or anything but what he and the Saudis are—irresponsible, miscreants who serve as ‘lackeys’ for the CIA, MI-6 and guess who else? 
You got it—the Mossad. The Israelis have the most to lose if Abbie leaves or is killed.  The Israelis believe that in this fairy tale land of the Middle East that the British created and now the Americans fortify, that this little nobody is their key to security. 
  A Hashemite, maybe he is. But a true descendant of the Bedouins in Petra, Amman, and other places in Jordan, he is not
  So bye, bye Abbie! Welcome to New World—The New and True Palestine where over sixty per cent of the population are already certified Palestinians and the rest are the true tribes of Abraham. 
Unlike Saudi Arabia, I cannot recommend Jordan as a fantasy land, although it has the city of the dead—Petra. But I can say that left alone the true Palestinians of what is falsely called “Jordan” will find their own creative ways to live and prosper. 
  For as King Faisal said, “The Palestinians are the Jews of the Middle East”.
It’s time to stop putting them in artificial ghettos called camps, West Bank, Gaza or , the worst of all---the Palestinian Ghetto called “JORDAN”. 
 Salam Aleikum!


  1. The British & French, but mostly Britain set out the borders in the Middle East.

    For 800 years the Ottoman Empire controlled the Middle East. There were administrative provinces of the Ottoman Empire.

    True, Middle East society was based on the tribe and not on arbitrary borders, but to rewrite those borders would take a lot of blood & treasure.

    Iraq has three groups, Sunni, Shia, and Kurd, but its borders make some sense, based on the Tigris and Euphrates river valley.

    Yes, Jordan is a British imperial construct.

    But what to do?

    The Muslim Brotherhood is the driving force behind the Jordanian protests.

    The Muslim Brotherhood has had connections to the CIA since the 1950's when both opposed the secular nationalist, Nasser in Egypt.

    So, be suspicious when you hear that the Muslim Brotherhood is behind the protests.

    It could be that the imperial powers are behind the protests.


    Why would the imperial powers place in motion potential threats against its own supposed puppet?

    Simple, the "puppet" has grown bold, or independent, even defiant of imperial wishes.

    So how does the imperial power insure compliance from a possibly recalcitrant puppet?

    Simple, the imperial power encourages its on-the-ground agents to instigate protests, causing instability, so that the puppet relies on the imperial power for stability and, thus, is much less likely to "get out of line."

    Now, Abdullah has worked closely with the West and as the post relates, the CIA. As did his father, King Hussein.

    It's also true the relationship between the Muslim Brotherhood and the CIA is kind of like the Mad Magazine, Spy vs. Spy comic.

    Each side is using the other side to further its own agenda.

    What would be the fate of Jordan without it's king?

    Frankly, possibly dissolution and then new land for a Greater Israel.

    Would that benefit the average Jordanian or Palestinian living in Jordan?

    Would a Jordan with no geopolitical role (after the King was deposed) receive any help from the former imperial powers (which it does currently receive)?

    Dr. Pieczenik loves to claim people are disfuntional -- "disfuntional" is one of his favorite words -- but King Abdullah has been functional for the West and for his own people.

    Jordan is a desert.

    Without considerable outside resources, Jordan would be a poor and impoverished land.

    Without King Abdullah, the West might cutoff it's outside financial support, thus, the demands of the protesters will never be met because Jordan doesn't have enough resources to keep up the minimal current living standards, let along provide better living standards.

    Perhaps, this is the tragedy & hope for the Middle East:

    All the old, imperial, demarcated borders dissolve and are 'Gone with the Wind'.

    With such a dissolution certainly new possibilities arise, but dangers, too.

    Yes, 'Gone with the Wind' was the old order, and a necessary thing, too, but without lazer focus on preserving their humanity, the Peoples of the Middle East could consume themselves with hatred and violence -- not directed at the imperial outsider, but at themselves, at each others' throats.

    That would be a tragedy, with little hope on the horizon.

    1. Trouble is, the Empire is right there to keep control. It allows only puppet governments and does not allow any truly independent country or government to form. If puppet governments show signs of independence they are destabilized and overthrown. This isn't going to stop until we, the people of the United States, overthrow the Empire here at its center.

  2. The Muslim Brotherhood have infiltrated all federal agencies & are a hallmark of OBAMAS LEGACY.

    The incitement is SHARIA-Made, an empire when complete will cover 75% of the planet. By 2020 due to arab births, Israel will be predominantly Arab. (it is doubtful parliament would ever outlaw an armed citizenry.)

    Dinesh d'Sousa showed us a map in his documentary "2016" how the BROTHERHOOD will spread unfettered as we are seeing in real time.

    Godfather CIA underwrites JORDAN, the BROTHERHOOD & their self-created contractors, Al-Qaeda . Now like blood brothers, they are fighting among themselves for their birthright of religious supremacy in an intolerant society of totalitarianism.
    The Brotherhood & al-Qaeda have merged, so every country will ultimately go down.
    Then the fight will be between the terrorists & the fanatics.
    Without funding the fanatics prevail .

    You would think the secular citizen which are many in Jordan, would see what is in store for them from the failed "Arab Spring".

    I respectfully disagree Dr. P., things are accelerating from bad to worse.
    Under John Brennan things will get rapidly worse with no checks & balances for as long as he lives...he will stay on like J Edgar Hoover hovering over patriotic Americans with contempt & threat of blackmail.

    The goal is worldwide death destruction & Sharia law.

    The poverty in the Middle East makes the citizens more amenable to change, believing life can only get better. That's what suppression & propaganda gets you.

    I recommend "What Every American Needs to know about the Qur'an: A History of Islam & the United States" by William J. Federer.

    1. You are an alarmist. There is no scholar of Islam or the Middle East who agrees with your exaggerated picture.

      Federer's work is full of facts, but they are not put in context.

      You can also go through the old Testament and pull out the same intolerant and violent phrases which Yahway and Mosses and other Hebrews said to their tribe. They similarly conquered their lands through slaughter of children and housewives who happened to be living their because Mosses said the "Land is given to US by God!!!"

      So if you want the real picture you have to look to the real beliefs of the actors today, and almost none of them believe in the uncompromising view you portray.

      In actually most of the Islamists are just using Islamic militancy as a cover for their ambitions and criminal activities.

      Almost none of the militants are sincere, they're just opportunists.

      Just look at the so-called militants in Algeria and Mali today --- they're just criminals using "Islam" as a pretext.

    2. Alarmist, you declare, really?

      Sharia is creeping into the US Courts, using the "honor killing" defense:

      Where are you located on this road map:

      I found you, Hangin' out at the "Always
      Right Club"...You were hiding, but aha,I FOUND YOU!"


  3. Patriarch, I disagree with you about most of this. Your view of the Muslim religion is what I would call classic Islamophobia, a type of anti-Semitism parallel to Jewish anti-Semitism. The average Muslim, Jew, or Christian is just a human being trying to make a living. The average Muslim does not want to live under Sharia law any more than the average Jew wants to observe every last rule in Leviticus and Deuteronomy. There are extremists in the Muslim religion same as the other religions. But these extremists would not come to power if they were not helped by imperial forces. The British have been behind so many crackpot religions and sects, from Mormonism to Zionism. They find them so useful to destabilize and weaken countries they wish to penetrate and control. The British found certain existing extremists after WW I which became the nucleus of the Muslim Brotherhood, and high-level intelligence contacts have continued up to this day. Now the Anglo-American oil protectorates are arming these "militants" who are nothing but mercenaries paid for with oil money and sending them against national governments that will not bend the knee to the imperial will. We are not in danger from the Muslim religion. Muslims did not attack us on 9/11/2001; a secret team of operatives including John Brennan did. Muslims are the bogyman,
    like Hitler's Jews. This is a tactic to distract people from the true enemy, the fifth column within.
    The goal is not the rule of Sharia law but it is the unfettered rule of imperial power.

    1. Sharia and imperialism are attached at the intestines.

      We do agree that the secular citizens in Jordan will end up worse.

      At least Abbie treats them well. Everyone despised and feared the Russian Czar until Lenin appeared. It is the Law of Relativity.

      On another matter we have a Radical Islamist usurping the White House in Sheep's clothing:

      Be sure to read this before Inauguration Day and listen to the audio link also.

      then pass it forward to others:
      "Except to his closest friends who still called him Barry, Soetoro was being methodically erased because those who were retooling him for an American political career knew that a Shariah-indoctrinated radical Muslim didn't fit in the pro-Israeli political landscape of the United States. Obama's transitional year became 1982 when Barry Soetoro officially became Barack Obama when he entered Columbia University. Soetoro,who came to Occidental College in Los Angeles, California as an Indonesian Muslim, transferred in Sept. 1982 to Columbia University as a Hawaiian-born Christian American. It was at that time that Saudi Crown Prince Abdullah began Obama's Manchurian Candidate makeover.

      Barry Soetoro didn't need a Selective Service Card since he was still a foreign student with an Indonesian passport. Barack Obama, on the other hand, could not legally enroll as an American student at Columbia University in 1982 without a Selective Service card because the law required it. When Barry Soetoro morphed into Barack Obama in what appears to be late 1982 or early 1983, Obama had a Selective Service Card which apparently contained Jean Paul Ludwig's (now deceased) Social Security number. So, having Ludwig die during Obama's "black hole" period was a stroke of luck for Obama. Between 1981 and 1983 Obama pretty much erased Barry Soetoro. The final vestiges of Soetoro were left behind when Obama went to Harvard Law School. He only had one bitter pill left to swallow when he graduated from Harvard and took his bar exam. He lied on his bar membership application. His supporters claim he lost his law license for inadvertently claiming he held he title of "Professor of Law" at Harvard when he fact he was a temporary part-time instructor. The real lie? He responded "no" to a question on the application which said: "Have you ever used an assumed name?" Michelle Obama surrendered her law license to avoid behind charged with insurance fraud. They're a pair that belongs together. They just don't belong together at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue in Washington, DC. The White House is the home of America's patriots. The Obamas fit the crooked political lifestyle of Cook County, Illinois. I guess that's why they call Chicago 'home'."

      audio interview:

    2. Obama is where he is today because throngs of people wanted to see in him what they desired rather than what's really there.

      No one who ever ran against him ever brought to the surface who or what he really is.

      With that said I don't agree that he's anyone's "agent" or tool of any kind.

      Obama is classically and obviously a wounded child, abandoned by his father and mother.

      He has no ideology, beliefs or passions.
      He'll say and do anything, profess anything, to be accepted and find success.

      Soo many people just love the guy.

      Throngs of people love that kind of personality...needy and neurotic.

    President Obama just declared that psychiatrists must ask about guns and snitch on their clients. Any psychiatrist who does not do so could encounter liability. Why would anyone see a psychiatrist, knowing that it comes with a permanent loss of their Constitutional rights?

  5. Hm, let's see - if we rename Jordan "Palestine" which has often been suggested by Zionists, does this become the new "two state solution"? Get rid of the useless British MI6 king and let the inhabitants of Jordan start calling themselves "Palestinians". Jordan is a British fiction anyway, and Israel is likewise an artificial British creation, whereas "Palestine" was called that for thousands of years. What about the folks in West Bank and Gaza? They can all move to Lebanon or Egypt or Jordan, I guess. More Lebensraum for the Zionists.

    But instead of a big two state solution, how about a big one state solution? That is,why not eliminate the other artificial British state, Israel, and have a single state including Israel, the West Bank, Gaza and Jordan called by its proper name, Palestine? Of course there would be no more "Jewish state", but what used to be "Israel" would still be by far the richest and most technologically advanced part of the new Palestine and able to contribute enormously to the economic advancement of all its people. Hey, I like it, I like it. All in favor say aye!

    1. The Jews would live in chronic anxiety and on permanent lockdown.

    2. They live in chronic anxiety now, so what's new? If they don't want to have anxiety they can go back to New York where they came from and should have stayed. But they could try rising above their fears and embracing their fellow Palestinians.

    3. That one state solution is a recipe for disaster.

      Each People should have a state both Jews & Palestinians.

      Each People want to have a state for their own.

      There is a way to a two state peace treaty.

      A peace treaty where each nation is secured by defined borders.

      And International Standards of conduct.

      Yes, a hard negotiation. Still, the alternatives seem to glower in the gritty mist of intractable cycles of senseless violence.

      There have been glimmers of light on the path to peace, there are avenues to peace & security in the Middle East today.

      It is in the vital national security interest of the United States that a peaceful resolution of interests be reached between Palestine & Israel, the two rightful nation-states present between the Jordan river & the sea.

    4. The more I think about it, the better I like it. Instead of a Greater Israel, a Greater Palestine. It makes so much more sense. It is the right way to integrate the Jewish population of Israel with the rest of the Middle East. Israel + the West Bank + Gaza + Jordan makes up a natural, organic whole. It would be a secular state with all the resources it needs for economic growth and a rising standard of living for the whole population.

    5. Tony Wicher, I know your intentions are good, but I fear the two parties would not work together.

      You can't force two antagonistic parties together and expect a good outcome.

      Do you really believe the Jewish citizens of Israel would accept giving up the Jewish character of the state?

      I hope I'm wrong, but I suspect there are many Israeli Jews who would kill to keep the official identity of the state Jewish.

      This "to the death" mentality would be true for many Palestinians, as well.

      Politics is the art of the possible.

      This includes geo-politics, too.

      Retreating into an idealization of a desired result when no realistic pathway exists for such an outcome is not a viable plan.

      Meanwhile more innocent people die and the prospects for real peace become ever more remote as facts on the ground become ever more intractable.

    6. Partition was the entire cause of the problem because it disenfranchised those who had always owned property in areas arbitrarily given to someone else by someone who had no legitimacy to make any such decisions.

      The one state solution is tha only answer, and by returning the properties to those who lost them to colonization will solve the entire problem.

      Once the Arabs return to the properties which were stolen they will vote in elections and outnumber the Jews, and thereby the laws granting Jews superior status will be repealed.

      The Jews don't want this, not because it will happen overnight, but like the abolishionist plan of the Republicans in 1860 it is a scheme certain to gain their goals with time.

      Once Israel is no longer a "Jewish" state, but a plural one the conflict will be over.

      Palestinian Arabs are not militants or Islamic fundamentalists who insist on living in an Islamic state.

      Palestinians have only recently turned to Islamic militancy out of necessity in order to find the zealousness and financial support required to conduct their struggle. However Palestinian Arabs are far more secular, modernized, and prosperous than any other Arabs.

    7. MITmichael, you maybe right the Palestinians are not militant by nature, but have been forced into it by circumstances, however, do you really think the Jewish citizens of Israel will submit to your idea of a 'one state solution'?

    8. The Israeli right is the dominant power today, and the settlers are the most important voting block.

      Unfortunately this issue will only be settled by struggle and probably violence.

      The west bank is no longer "occupied," it is COLONIZED.

      There's not even anywhere left for any state under a two-state plan.

      Israel has to face these trends:

      1.American Jewry is turning away

      2.American intellectuals are opposed

      3.Neo-cons are aged and gone

      4.New Arab governments are opposed

      5.World opinion is opposed.

      As these trends against Israel increase the Israeli right will get even more intransigent.

      Many on the left in Israel will immigrate.

      Things don't look good for any peaceful resolution.

    9. The citizens of Israel will "submit" to integration with their fellow non-Jewish humans just as the South did in the 1960's or South Africa did under Mandela. Hopefully, Israeli Jews are smart enought to figure out they can still negotiate their way to a being in what is actually much stronger and more secure position as a very influential minority in a larger state, as indeed they are in many other countries including this one. If they are not smart enough to figure this out, they will eventually be exterminated in a second Holocaust. The trouble is that the Anglo-Americans have been backing the most intransigent elements of Israeli society, the extreme Zionists just as they also back the extremist Muslims. Maybe the appointment of Hagel signals a real change in our policy toward Israel. At least I hope so.

    10. Anaconda,

      What is the definition of "The French People" or "The Turkish People?" A French person is someone born in France; it does not matter what their race or religion is. A Turkish person is a person born in Turkey. It is again not someone of any particular race or religion. An American is someone born in America. It does not matter what his race or religion is, and this principle is codified in our Constitution. We ought not to support any country that violates this principle. If we made this unmistakably clear to Israel I think it would bow to the inevitable. But that requires our government to change, and that is what we need to focus on.

    11. Tony Wicher,

      I wish the analogy with S.Africa or the American South worked here but it just doesn't.

      I know the Israeli right and they will never, ever, give up the Jewish state.

      They would rather die first.

      Unlike the analogies you've described the Israeli right obtains it's convictions from religion, chauvanism, racism, etc., which is at the core of their identities.

      The better analogy is Germany in 1945, and similarly they will have to be defeated militarily.

      Unfortunate but probably true.

  6. I remember in what, 1989, when the diminutive King of Jordan held elections. The militants won everywhere by wide margins so he cancelled the whole idea and never held another.

    The masses of public opinion anywhere in the Arab or Islamic worlds favor opposition to Israel. And in all these places the militants are the only people organized to take advantage of any elections.

    Elections will always lead to militants winning out, and they will also win out in any revolutionary situation as well.

    We'd better be prepared to do business with Islamic militants because they are the wave of the future.

    It will be generations before secularists gain any power at all.

    The ba'ath was a secular movement, and they were also basically facist [which to me is no big deal].

    Because the ba'ath were facist they were able to complete with Islamists, and in Iraq at least they brought about huge modernizations and social reforms just like any good facist government will do. The problem is they also tend to be prone to warlike activities as well which they cannot manage.

    King Abdullah is just another idiot son, and he hasn't the smarts, cunning, or ruthlessness that his cohorts elsewhere possess.

    1. You certainly have peculiar ideas about fascism. So Hitler and Mussolini brought about huge modernizations and social reforms, did they? Care to name a few?

    2. Any historian will tell you that while the entire capitalist world was suffering in the misery of high unemployment with no social saftey net unemployment in Germany was ended in two years under the Nazis.

      The Nazis came in to power in 1933 [same time as FDR] and they created over 8 million jobs, eliminated unemployment, DOUBLED wages, and instituted paid vactions. Because of this the German economy was the ONLY healthy economy in the ENTIRE WORLD, and the US government encouraged US businesses to trade with Germany as much as possible. British Prime Minister Lloyd George [WWI British Prime Minister] met with Hitler at the Burghoff and gave him glowing reviews about social and material progress as well as the German's PEACEFUL INTENTIONS FOR THE FUTURE. Most English of commerce agreed, and even Prince Edward came to admire the Nazis.

      In Italy Moussolini accomoplished much of the same thing, and you must remember that these events occurred when both Italy and Germany were in virtual civil war with Bohlshevic-sponsored violent communists which the facists locked away in cocentration camps - Dachau being the first and was filled entirely with communist agitators.

      If you want to claim that all this achievement is cancelled out because they dis-enfranchised Jews and made them non-citizens I'll argue that point too. There were reasons why that occurred. Nore is there any historian who still believes that their were any homicidal gas chambers at ANY of the 16 camps in which investigations have been permitted. The only remaining controversy is over the 5 camps for which no investigations are allowed.

      The Nazis were zealouts. They performed euthanasia until the Catholic Church put an end to it, and did a lot of other dramatic things.

      However only dramatically-inclined, risk-taking people are capable of transformational reform, and that was the only way to acheive thier social successes.

      It's necessarily a two-edged sword.

    3. Hitler said time and time again that FANATACISM was the only way to conduct their revolution. He repeated this statement time and time again in speeches in front of audiences of millions.

      He said that many innocent people would be falsely accused, and many innocent people would suffer, however it was the only way to achieve what must be accomplished [the words of a zealot].

      He constantly mentioned the numbers of people committing suicide from dispair and hoplessness because of the poverty which had gripped the nation. And were it not for this dire poverty he would never have been elected in 1933.

      He always considered the zealots under him thugs and morons. He killed and disbanded his brown-shirted SA when he no longer needed thier thuggery. He also had distain for the idiocy of the indoctrination given the the Nazi youth.

      For example, when the grandchildren of Richard Wagner told them they quit the Nazi Youth because thier training was "stupid," Hitler replied, "I would have done the same thing."

      In Covert Action as in revolution you have to be willing to use the shooters, but that doesen't mean they reflect yourself.

    4. In 1991 Edward Luttwak and John Connolly from Texas appeared all over the media SPEAKING AGAINST OPERATION DESERT STORM.

      They referred to Saddam's government as, "The only honest government in the region," and "unlike the corrupt Saudis there is not a hint of corruption in the Saddam government."

      The Iraqi ba'ath party had it's brutal, repressive side when it came to sectarians rebellions which threatened to fracture the country or convert it into an Islamic state. And Saddam was the mailed fist of the party brought in 1979 to deal with the threat of the Iranian revolution which threatened to spread into Shi'i Iraq.

      If it were not for these security burdeons the tremendous social and material successes of the ba'ath would have been a demonstration to the sicko Monarchs that an authoritarian, dictitorial, secular, pro-modernizaing, pro-feminest, alternative could deliver a livable society for the people.

    5. MIT

      You might want to read the fairly balanced Wikipedia article on the German economy under the Nazis as a sample of what "any historian will tell you".

      According to this article, the full employment reached by Germany came about through a combination of government policies to develop the national infrastructure necessary for war. This is where the idea comes from that "war is good for the economy", still an item of faith among the warmongers of the world, and their bankers. It works for a few years, it's a bubble economy of a sort, where you end up having to go to the war you geared up for to loot some conquered countries and pay your debts to those wonderful bankers who financed the whole thing. Obviously armies and weapons of war are a complete waste of a nation's resources. What these bankers and warmongers don't want people to understand is that the same resources that the government can direct into war they can also use to develop the country's real economy and raise the standard of living continuously, in a way that is not a bubble, because the productivity of labor continuously rises. That idea they call "socialism". But it's really just healthy nationalism. That is the type of "dirigistic" economics advocated by both LaRouche and Tarpley, and they site FDR, Lincoln, John Quincy Adams, Monroe and Hamilton as their predecessors. It is nationalist economic democracy, where the management of the economy as a whole is the responsibility of Congress, which is finally accountable to the people, and not by unaccountable private bankers who manage it for their own private benefit.

    6. As in so many other areas Wikipedia's contributors are dead wrong and purely ideological about the topic.

      Wikipedia is not a scholarly source.


    7. There are many things particular to the German national character that make it easy for them to have a strong economy.

      If you doubt that just look at them today versus all others. [except for maybe their similar race Scandanavians].

      Why the Nazis were required in 1933 was that only a radical nationalistic policy which subsumed the individual interests of the the wealthy, finance capital, etc. to an ALL ENCOMPASSING POLICY GOAL was required.


      But once full employment was reached the government role was relaxed, and then normal aggregate demand pushed GNP forward.

      It was simply Keynsian economics on steroids.

    8. The aristocrats were always opposed to Hitler, and it was a gang of aristocrats who tried to kill him over and over again and failed, such as this coward "Von whatever his name was.." who left a bomb under the briefing table and then SPLIT....SO LONG I'M OUTTA HERE....

  7. MIT, well excuse me! You said "any historian" would support the encomium to Nazi economics that you assured me was common knowledge, so I googled "Nazi Economics" and the Great Randomizer camp back with an arbitary historian who did not say what you said "any historian" would say. So then please tell me which historian you take as authoritative on these matters?

    Is it or is it not true that the Nazi economy was essentially a war economy? Yes, you can call this "military Keynsianism", and this is still practiced today - by the United States, with its huge military budget and its correspondingly huge deficit. This war economy has to be converted to a peacetime economy where that trillion + per year is spent on peacetime economic development. As financial collapse approaches, the only thing left to do is go to war, and that's what's happening right now.

    1. The economic situation in Germany from 1933-1935 in which over 7 million jobs were created, in which unemployment was eliminated and wages doubled...

      Had nothing to do with any "war economy."

      Those years were way before any military mobilizations of any kind.

      All that came much, much later.