Iran and the bomb: Why should we care?

On November 30, 2013, in Foreign Commentary, by natalt

by Toby Fleetwood-Smith

 As we know, a deal was signed with Iran this week, and as we know, Israel and the Jewish-Israeli lobby are not happy. As soon as I heard the news, I knew that, within 24 hours, a host of media commentators would be comparing the deal to Neville Chamberlain’s agreement with Hitler in Munich in 1938. And lo and behold, when I checked the news sites the next day, I saw headlines reading ‘Worse than Munich’.

Before we go into the topic of Iran, nukes and Israel, let’s set the record straight on Munich, because it’s important we get the facts straight and tackle the lies of the media on this subject.

In October 1938, Hitler and Chamberlain signed a deal to allow the German parts of the Czech Republic to be incorporated into Germany; Poland – those wonderful, democracy-loving Poles – got a portion called Zaolzie, while Hungary got the southern border of Slovakia and the southern portions of a piece of Ukraine called Carpathian Ruthenia a month later. Subsequent generations of pro-Churchill journalists, academics and politicians looked at all this as a betrayal, but it’s never explained why the Czech Republic’s claims to these territories had more validity than Germany’s, Hungary’s and Poland’s. At any rate, the artificial entity called Czechoslovakia broke up in 1939 (as it did in 1992) when Slovakia declared its independence. The Czech Republic was dissolved into Germany, Slovakia got its independence and Hungary got all of Carpathian Ruthenia. Again, our liberal politicians and journalists regarded this as a terrible thing, but the point is moot – after the war, the Czechs turned on the Germans in the Sudeten territories and raped and killed them until they all left, using the same tactics as the Jewish settlers used in Palestine against the Palestinians in 1948.

The liberal establishment orthodoxy regrets the Munich agreement, and the dissolution of the Czech Republic, as two missed opportunities to go to war against Hitler – not because it cares about national independence, sovereignty and human rights.

Comparisons to Munich are stupid and pointless, but what’s revealing is this reference to Europe’s fascist past. The op-ed commentators, with names like Jonah Goldberg and the like, could have used plenty of other historical analogies: among them are the signing of a peace agreement between the US and North Vietnam in 1973, Ghaddafi’s offer, after 2003, to dismantle his chemical and biological weapons arsenal, and Assad’s proposal, this year, to dismantle his chemical weapons. But our commentators prefer to dwell in a particular locale – Europe – in a particular decade. In general, anyone who follows the Western mass media will observe that WWII in Europe is treated as though it happened yesterday, not seventy years ago; and that hardly any attention is paid to the Pacific theater, let alone more recent conflicts the West has been involved in (Korea, Vietnam, even the 2003 Iraq war). These conflicts are neglected and seemed to be regarded, by the Western liberal establishment, as almost insignificant, of no consequence.

In a way, conflicts like the Pacific theater, or Vietnam, are of no consequence – politically. Wars are fought over politics – as Clausewitz’s dictum runs, war is the continuation of politics by other means – and WWII in Europe, and the years of the 1930s, are extremely important and relevant because the same political structures put in place in Europe and the West in that time are still in place today. The ideology of Rooseveltism, Churchillism, De Gaullism and Zionism are still rampant; Obama, Cameron, Hollande and Netanyahu are Roosevelt, Churchill, De Gaulle and Chaim Weizmann (Zionist agitator and close personal friend of Churchill in the 1930s and 1940s, later first president of Israel) respectively.

The world-view of these leaders is pro-Zionist, and, while being ostensibly democratic (liberal democratic) is unabashedly elitist – political power is invested in cliques of capitalists (such as the Zuckerbergs and Murdochs, who are endlessly agitating for more and more non-white immigration into the West), bureaucrats in Brussels, shadowy, sinister cabals (in Europe in the time of the 1930s and 1940s, it was shadowy, covert Masonic secret societies) and establishment perverts like Jimmy Savile and Dominique Strauss-Kahn. The worldview is also deeply sympathetic to Marxism – Stalinist communism in Roosevelt’s time, neo-Marxism (Cultural Marxism) in ours.

The above weltanschauung – of the West’s post-1945 ruling class – is a unity; it is monolithic. But there is an apparent contradiction: the Obama administration is pro-Zionist, but, by negotiating a deal with Iran, has done something which has offended many Zionists. Why is this?

The answer is that Obama is a radical from a Far Left, Cultural Marxist and New Left milieu – so are most of the appointees in his administration. Since about the 1960s, the Left has been anti-Israel. In the beginning, Israel was considered a ‘progressive’ state, and was recognised by both the USA and the USSR within hours of its forming; its receipt of Soviet arms – routed to Israel via Czechoslovakia – in the middle of the 1948 war helped turned the tide against the Arabs. The early Soviet support of Israel, and Israel’s kibbutzim and ‘progressive’ policies meant, initially, that it was approved of by the Left, but by about the 1950s, the USSR turned on it and by the end of the 1960s the New Left followed suit. The Palestinians, along with the Viet Cong, became the new darlings of the Left. Strangely enough, however, the US Left never abandoned Jewishness and Zionism. Gilad Atzmon has recently authored a number of exposés on the matter and alleges that many of the most fervent pro-Palestinian and anti-Israel Jewish activists on the Far Left still feel an affiliation with Jewish causes and a loyalty to the Jewish State. He charges that these Jewish activists serve the purpose of a ‘false opposition’ – they exist to control the left-wing opposition to Israel and channel into safe (that is, pro-Jewish) directions. In truth, there are two Zionisms, one on the Right, the other on the Left, and Obama’s apparently contradictory actions can be related back to this split. The right-Zionists – the neoconservatives, the Mitt Romneys, the Rush Limbaughs – want war with Iran and Hezbollah; the left-Zionists want a negotiated settlement, and ‘peace’ with the Palestinians. Obama is a left-Zionist.

Unfortunately for Obama, the Jewish-American and Jewish-Israeli lobbies demand complete obedience from Western politicians and become outraged – and hurl accusations of ‘anti-Semitism’ – if a leader doesn’t embrace Israel with the enthusiasm of a Clinton or Bush Jr. Obama has performed his presidential duties – receiving Netanyahu, wearing a yarmulke at the Wailing Wall, slapping sanctions on Iran – with a marked lack of enthusiasm, in a plodding, workmanlike manner. He has shown an unwillingness to go to war and as a crypto-Marxist, the only war that interests him is class war. His reluctance to accede to foreign adventurism is in tune with the war-weary American public and it is one of the reasons why he won the election against Romney in 2012, Romney being a member of the hawkish right-Zionist faction.

William Pierce once said that Jews are a theatrical people. Certainly, Netanyahu is an attention hog who is always trying to get Israel into the headlines with dire warnings of an imminent action against Iran. Jewish-Israelis love playing the victim – surrounded by hostile Arab states, always on the brink of annihilation – and ratcheting up war-fever. One of the reasons why they disliked the Arab Spring is because it detracts attention from Israel – to them, the most important nation in the Middle East – and its prospective war against Iran.

The nationalist approach to Israel and Iran should be: ‘Who cares?’ But don’t let me be misunderstood: the Iranian regime is backward and bigoted, brutal and repressive; it supports terrorism and hostage taking and it came into power after a violent revolution which led to the execution of perhaps tens of thousands of its political opponents. Its leaders are as corrupt as the Ghaddafis, Blairs and Putins – its mullahs are worth billions – and no friends of the Western nationalist cause.

Western nationalists and racialists are not always the most discerning lot, and in general have swallowed all the propaganda lies – concocted by the Iranian and Russian media – regarding the Islamist and liberal insurgency against Assad. Nationalists of an anti-Semitic bent operate under the principle that the enemy of my enemy is our friend, and our championing of the Ghaddafis, Assads, Iranians and Palestinians has done our cause a great deal of damage. Anti-Semitism, which is the opposition to and negation of another culture, carried too far leads to the neglect of our own Western culture. We can see how David Duke – who is surely in the pay of the Iranian Ministry of Information – neglects his own Southern culture, and white America’s problems with Afro-Americans, because of his obsessive focus on Israel and the Jews.

We saw a low white voter turnout at the last US presidential election and it was this white apathy that handed the election to Obama. Many so-called ‘white nationalists’ and ‘white advocates’ refused to endorse Romney, on the grounds that Romney and the Zionists would bomb Iran. The safety and well-being of the mullah regime in Iran were more important to these supposed lovers of the white race than the prospect of four more years of Obama – Obama, an Afro-American with deep-rooted animus to white Americans. (Afro-Americans, of course, voted for the black man, not the white man – to them having someone of their own race as President was more important than Iran). Nationalists often chide our people – the white Western people – for their universalism, abstractionism and blindness, as well as their altruism; all of these vices (cultural and racial vices) were on full display in the ‘white nationalist’ scene during that election. The pro-Iranism of the David Dukes led to a de facto endorsement of Obama and Eric Holder.

But to return to the peace deal: the outbreak of war is, at this point, unlikely, and it is unlikely that Israel – even though it has one of the largest and most technologically-advanced air forces in the world – could knock out Iran’s nuclear capacity through bombing. Even with American assistance, an aerial campaign alone wouldn’t achieve the objective. What would be needed is a ground offensive, and a conquest and occupation of Iran (by American, British, French and Australian soldiers, of course – Israel wouldn’t risk the life of one Jewish-Israeli soldier) to dismantle Iran’s nuclear reactors. The West, at this point in time, simply doesn’t have the will, or even the military capacity, to do it.

What’s interesting, for we nationalists, is that we can use the deal – and the reactions from the right-Zionist press – to expose the rotten core of our present political system.

We can ask the question: what are the benefits to me for defending Israel? Israel is a Jewish State and won’t accept me as a citizen because I’m not Jewish. Culturally, racially, religiously, the Jewish Israelis are nothing like me – I have as much in common with them as I do with the Palestinians and Iranians. The destruction of Israel – that’s supposed to frighten me, but it’s no more scary, or relevant, to me than the destruction of Palestine in 1948. So why should I care?

But, of course, I’m being deliberately facetious, disingenuous, here; the truth of the matter is that I know what the score is. I should, as a white Western European, support Israel in order to abide the rules of the game, and one of the foremost rules of that game is, assent to being used. Anti-Semites have always alleged that Jews have a predatory and manipulative attitude towards non-Jews, and certainly Israel and the Jewish-Israeli lobby exhibit these characteristics in spades – they expect Americans, British, Australians and other white Westerners to send their soldiers to fight and die for Israel. I am, as a white Westerner, meant to accept this as a privilege and an honour, and any politician in the West who assents to such a war on behalf of Israel will be praised to the skies by our right-Zionist press as ‘courageous’, ‘daring’, a real ‘defender of democracy’!
One of the arguments made by the Far Right against the liberal democratic regimes in Europe in the 1920s and 1930s is that, in the long run, democracies of that kind lead to chaos and misery. In Europe in 2013, we have that chaos and misery – unemployment in some European states is at depression levels, and then there is the chaos of open borders and mass immigration, legal and illegal – and this is in large part due to our present liberal democratic system and the post-1945 ideology. The same malaise carries over to Europe’s colonies – in particular, Australia and the US – as well. The malaise is really structural, that is to say, an organic part of the existing political system, and it’s only by uprooting that system altogether that we’ll see any real change.

It’s not that our present Western liberal democratic ideology is opposed to ‘dictatorship’ – i.e., that it is ‘liberal’ and its antitheses (German National Socialism, for example, or Italian Fascism) are ‘dictatorial’. There were a few regimes in Europe in the 1930s and 1940s which were authoritarian and dictatorial and at the same time opposed to Hitler. In 2013, the trend, in our present-day liberal democracies (including the US and especially the UK) is towards authoritarianism and repression. There is less freedom of speech and less liberalism overall in Europe and the West than there has been at any time in the past seventy years. Authoritarianism and liberal democracy are not incompatible. What is incompatible with our present system is, I think, volkishness. Both the Mussolini and Hitler states claimed that they were acting in the interests of their respective volks – as opposed to the interests of liberal capitalists, Jewish war agitators and sinister Masonic cliques. This is in marked contrast to today’s Culture Marxists and New Labour types, who openly profess their hatred of the Western people and the working-class.

Netanyahu is annoyed by the Iran deal because he won’t get war. After ten years, he and the Jewish-Israeli lobby simply can’t conceive of a way of sorting their problems out with Iran which doesn’t involve bloodshed, disruption and chaos. Things have to get worse before they get better. It’s a testimony to the bankruptcy of Weizmannism and the Anglo-Saxon leaders of the West, yesterday the Churchills, today the Camerons, who champion it.

 

3 Responses to Iran and the bomb: Why should we care?

  1. kr says:

    Very good write up . I could not agree more with you.

  2. kr says:

    Very good write up . Good work

  3. Nathan says:

    Yes, a very good article, and I’m pleased you took the effort to qualify Iran in the context of WN understanding: ie., no angel. Sadly, Dr David Duke seldom makes the same effort, bless him all the same.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Please enter CAPTCHA *