Yurki, Dajjal and Me


[I have no idea what lingo 1, 2 & 3 is. But like the definition]

Contributors: Yurki1000, Dajjal and John R. Houk

© July 4, 2017

 

On November 30, 2017 I posted this title: Comments to ‘Is Obama the Blame for rising Islamic Terrorism in USA?’. I will not go into the details of the post which was a somewhat hostile response to a person that went by the name Allan Harm. In this day of anonymity, the name may or may not have been a pseudonym.

 

The point I am going to run with is a series of comments by Yurki1000 that begins 6/5/17. I haven’t decided yet but I might also include some responses to Yurki’s thoughts. Also, this may turn into more than one part because the comments are many.

 

I add further thoughts toward the bottom.

 

JRH 7/4/17

Please Support NCCR

***************

June 5, 2017 at 2:19 PM

 

Thanks Dajjal. Again we see we are in the Last Days. Commies are everywhere.

 

Ontario passes ‘totalitarian’ bill allowing gov’t to take kids from Christian homes

 

– TORONTO, June 1, 2017 (LifeSiteNews) — Ontario’s Kathleen Wynne Liberals have passed what critics describe as “totalitarian” Bill 89 by a vote of 63 to 23 on the last day before Queen’s Park adjourns for the summer.

 

Pro-family advocates warn Bill 89 gives the state more power to seize children from families that oppose the LGBTQI and gender ideology agenda, and allows government agencies to effectively ban couples who disagree with that agenda from fostering or adopting children.

 

Bill 89, or the Supporting Children, Youth and Families Act, 2017, repeals and replaces the former Child and Family Services Act that governs child protection services, and adoption and foster care services.

 

It adds “gender identity” and “gender expression” as factors to be considered “in the best interests of the child.”

 

At the same time, it deletes the religious faith in which the parents are raising the child as a factor to be considered, and mandates child protection services consider only the child’s own “creed” or “religion” when assessing the best interests of the child.

 

“With the passage of Bill 89, we’ve entered an era of totalitarian power by the state, such as never witnessed before in Canada’s history,” says Jack Fonseca, senior political strategist for Campaign Life Coalition.

 

“Make no mistake, Bill 89 is a grave threat to Christians and all people of faith who have children, or who hope to grow their family through adoption.” –

 

 

 

– Children’s Aid agencies now have “a type of police power to bust down your door, and seize your biological children if you are known to oppose LGBT ideology and the fraudulent theory of ‘gender identity’, if for instance, some claim is made that your child may be same-sex attracted or confused about their ‘gender,’” according to Fonseca.

 

“We already see similar tyranny happening in other jurisdictions, such as Norway, where the main child protection service there, Barnevernet, has been involved in numerous high profile seizures of children from traditionally-principled families,” he added.

 

Fonseca pointed out the Liberal bill gives legal cover for government workers to discriminate against Christians who want to adopt or foster children. –

 

 

 

– Fonseca also issued a plea to Christian leaders, particularly the Catholic bishops.

 

“Why has the most powerful spiritual body in this province, the Catholic hierarchy, not lifted a finger nor raised a voice to oppose this tyranny against Christian families, and those from other faiths?” Fonseca questioned.

 

“The lack of spiritual leadership is killing us. Every single time that Liberals, either federally or provincially, roll out the LGBT juggernaut to take away our rights, or to demonize us as bigots, we hear nothing but silence from the Church. This has to stop.” –

 

Please read more:

 

https://www.lifesitenews.com/news/breaking-ontario-passes-totalitarian-bill-allowing-govt-to-take-kids-from-c

 

Photo from here:

 

http://www.commieblaster.com/nwo-cfr-bilderberg/index.html

 

+++

June 6, 2017 at 10:13 AM

 

 

The roots of communism: the socialist-communist reductions in Paraguay 1609-1767

 

– This chapter is most important as it will be proven that the Jesuits are the true authors of socialist-communism. The economic system of the Dark Ages was feudalism consisting of the few rich landowners and the many poor peasants. It was “a sin” to make a profit by anyone other than the feudal lords. Thus, if the world is to be returned to the Dark Ages, the White Protestant Middle Class must be destroyed. Socialist-Communism accomplishes this, which system includes the progressive income tax (wickedly taxing the common-law right to labor exercised by all wageearners), having yielded its bitter fruit in both Great Britain and the United States.

 

The great deception is that the Jews are the authors of communism. (After all, is not Labor Zionism, as opposed to Revisionist Zionism, Jewish communism?) The facts are that the Jesuits used their Masonic Jews to introduce it in 1848 with the Second French Revolution (Marx), and again in 1917 with the Bolshevik Revolution (Lenin). Several years later, in 1933, the Order, in the person of Georgetown University Jesuit Edmund A. Walsh, then moved their 33rd Degree and Shriner Freemason, Franklin Delano Roosevelt (FDR), to recognize Russia’s bloody government. The Society then financed Russian communism with its Knights of Malta on Wall Street. This enabled Jesuit-trained and advised Josef Stalin, “the Grand Inquisitor,” to carry out the Great Terrorist Purges of the Thirties. Having deceived the world into believing communism was of Jewish origin, the Jesuits then used Hitler to implement “the Final Solution to the Jewish Question” pursuant to the evil Council of Trent. The result was the mass-murder of European and Russian Jewry at the hands of the Order’s Teutonic Knights, the Nazi “Schutzstaffel” (SS). At the close of the Second Thirty Years’ War (1945) the Jesuits, with their Vatican Ratline, helped hundreds of top Nazis to escape to South America. And where in South America? To the old dominion where socialist-communism had been perfected by the Jesuit fathers—to the nation of Paraguay. For it was here that the socialist tenets of Roman Catholic “Saint” Sir Thomas More, an English traitor to his Protestant King Henry VIII, were revived and later used against Reformed nations. –

 

http://nccg.org/ning/forum/the-roots-of-communi”sm-the.htm

 

Photo from here:

 

https://stigdragholm.wordpress.com/new-world-order/new-world-order-of-darkness-of-the-world-elite-part-iv/#Church

 

+++

Dajjal

June 6, 2017 at 3:30 PM

 

The Moron who created that meme knows S**T and nothing else. Everyone who believes that excrement has excrement where their brain should be. I will not waste my time refuting each lie individually.

 

[Blog Editor: Dajjal was a bit harsh yet I do see his reasoning. Let’s look at some of the post that interested Yurki:

 

the Jesuits are the true authors of socialist-communism.”

 

Off the top of my head my knowledge of history recalls the Jesuits were originally formed as an organization to defend the tenets of the Roman Catholic Church from the Reformer Protestants who had grown weary of Catholic leadership excesses (HERE and HERE) that strayed from Biblical principles. History records the Catholic response as the Counter Reformation which did lead to some harsh wicked measures against non-Catholics such as Protestants, Jews, Muslims and Christian spinoffs such as the Cathars. The Cathars as a religious movement do not exist today because of this Counter Reformation better known as The Inquisition.

 

As such the Jesuits were brutal religious zealots and hardly atheistic Communists that Marx and Engels would later propagandize the world.

 

I am pleased the author of “The roots of communism doesn’t toss the entirety of all Jewry as a bunch of NWO Communists preparing to take over the globe:

 

The great deception is that the Jews are the authors of communism. (After all, is not Labor Zionism, as opposed to Revisionist Zionism, Jewish communism?)

 

There are Jews that are Leftist that are proud of their Jewish heritage but do not practice Judaism. These are the kind of Jews that have forgotten their history as to reasons they would walk 40-years in the Wilderness before entering the Promised; why Jews experienced good times and bad during the Judges period and why the Northern Kingdom of Israel and finally Judah were expelled from their God-given heritage. Each time was for losing their faith and loyalty to God Almighty (Yahweh). And finally, greedy Jewish leadership among the Sadducees and Pharisees resulted in a huge expulsion of Jews in the rebellions between 66 AD and 136 AD. (Yup I’m old school preferring Anno Domini over Christian Era – CE.) Even now it is my opinion Israel faces an existential crisis more from being divided between Left and Right than Western Antisemitism and Muslim Jew-hatred. But that’s just my opinion.

 

But alas, the author of “The roots of communism makes connections between Catholic Jesuits, Protestant FDR and Communist atheist monster Joseph Stalin of the USSR. Like Dajjal I have run out of gas in showing the load of illogic of the connections. Nonetheless, FDR’s cozying up to Stalin and the USSR does have some historical data of either political stupidity or political sympathy for the despotic Communist state.

 

Well, that’s all for now. No promises on further Yurki comments. If you have a fascination with this kind of thing as I do, Yurki has made plenty of comments supporting his frame of thinking. I don’t go along with much of Yurki’s thoughts, but that doesn’t mean he is absolutely off track either.

 

Until the next urge to cross post and comment on Yurki, may God’s blessings overtake you with His love and wellbeing.

 

JRH 7/4/17

Please Support NCCR

 

 

Israel Kicks Hostile Arab Armies’ Butts 50 Yrs. Ago


John R. Houk

© June 6, 2017

 

In the 1967 – 50-years ago – June 5 -10; Israel fought a war with at least four Arab nations amassing troops on Israel’s border. Begin counting from day one through the last day, you have the Six-Day War.

 

Israel AGAIN defeated armies much-much larger than the Israel Defense Force (IDF). The Arab nations prepared for invasion for what they believed would be the utter destruction of Israel. Wisely, Israel utterly surprised the Egyptian military front by launching a preemptive attack which destroyed most of Egypt’s air force. Using the shock to Israel’s advantage, the IDF then launched their vastly outnumbered tanks and pushed Egypt out of the Sinai.  Then Jordan and Syria launched their invasions unaware that Egypt had gotten their butts kicked in the Sinai. Although there was a less of a surprise, the IDF ultimately prevailed against Syria and Jordan. The Golan Heights was taken from Syria and the land conquered by Jordan in 1948 was taken back which included Israel’s heritage of uniting Jerusalem. Making Jerusalem whole allowed Jewish access to their most holy site left to them – the Western Wall still standing after the Romans destroyed the Jewish Temple circa 70 AD.

 

The Six Day War Project has a great video setting up the scene leading to 1967:

 

VIDEO: Why Did Israel Go To War? | Six Day War Project #1

 

Posted by Jerusalem U

Published on May 17, 2017

 

1/12 | In the first video of the mini-series, find out about the early steps that led to the 1967 Six Day War – a war that changed the future of Israel. Surrounded by enemy neighbors and only nine miles wide at its narrowest point, Israel was vulnerable.

See all the videos as they are released: http://www.sixdaywarproject.org/.

In May of 1967, the state of Israel was only 19 years old. At its inception in 1948, five Arab armies had coordinated a military invasion to prevent the creation of the small Jewish country. But Israel’s War of Independence succeeded in repelling the forces bent on Israel’s destruction. Israel reclaimed sovereignty over the ancient Jewish homeland, making way for the establishment of a Jewish country after 2,000 years of statelessness and periods of persecution.

Yet despite Israel’s success in creating a new country, it did not enjoy peace with its neighbors. Terrorism and frequent attacks on three borders kept Israel in a perpetual state of alert.

To the north, from the Golan Heights, Syria shelled Jewish communities below on a regular basis. In the South and East, Arab terrorists from Egyptian-controlled Gaza and the Jordanian-controlled West Bank infiltrated and perpetrated attacks on Israeli civilians, killing 400 in the 19 years since Israeli independence.

The attacks reached the point that they were condemned as “deplorable” by then-Secretary General of the United Nations U Thant.

Although the Jewish state had been welcomed into the United Nations and hailed by the international community, its Arab neighbors rejected its very right to exist, preparing to resume a war for Israel’s destruction which they had halted 19 years earlier. The Arab buildup for all-out war was very near.

In this video – the first in a 12-part mini-series – you will learn about the regional atmosphere leading up to the 1967 Six Day War, and find out about the early steps that led to the war that changed the future of Israel.

Like the Six Day War Project on Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/sixdaywarproject

This video was produced by Jerusalem U in partnership with The Jerusalem Post, the Jewish Federations of North America, the Jewish Council for Public Affairs, the Jewish National Fund, the Israel Action Network, the European Jewish Congress and the Center for Israel Education. For more on the dramatic events and impact of the Six Day War, visit sixdaywarproject.org.

Thumbnail Photo Credit: Israel GPO/Moshe Milner
———–

Subscribe and check out more awesome JerusalemU videos!
https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCU63EiU7Y-8xcRntPIRVrzA?sub_confirmation=1
GET SOCIAL @ JERUSALEM U:
https://www.jerusalemu.org/
https://www.facebook.com/JerusalemU
http://instagram.com/Jerusalem_U
http://twitter.com/Jerusalem_U

———–

Are you Jewish and aged 16-28? You could be eligible for READ THE REST

 

If you are a bit impatient to educate yourself at the Six Day War Project, here is a 6:45 abbreviated 6-Day War documentary that will provide the highlights:

 

VIDEO: 50 Years Later: Remembering the Six-Day War

 

Posted by AIPAC

Published on May 24, 2017

 

While the military victory was resounding, the Six-Day War created unresolved challenges that Israel grapples with to this day. The war also bolstered America’s pro-Israel community and helped to further reinforce the foundation of the U.S.-Israel strategic relationship and America’s pro-Israel community. Learn more: http://fal.cn/SixDayWarReflections

 

Adam Garfinkle wrote an essay for the Foreign Policy Research Institute (FPRI) reflecting on his historical view of the results of the Israeli victory in the 6-Day War.

 

JRH 6/6/17

Please Support NCCR

****************

The Six Day and Fifty Years War

 

By Adam Garfinkle

June 5, 2017

Foreign Policy Research Institute

 

Defense Minister Moshe Dayan, Chief-of-Staff Yitzhak Rabin, Gen. Rehavam Zeevi R and Gen. Narkis in the old city of Jerusalem – Source: Government Press Office/Flickr

 

The most important lesson of the June 1967 Arab-Israeli war is that there is no such thing as a clean war. That war was very short and stunningly decisive militarily; it has been anything but politically. From the Israeli point of view, military victory solved some serious near-term challenges, but at the cost of generating or exacerbating a host of longer-term ones—some of which may have come along anyway, some not, some of which may have been averted (or worsened) had Israeli postwar policy been different—and we cannot know for certain which are which. To ask whether what has transpired after the war “had to be that way” constitutes an aspiration to levitate the philosopher’s stone.

 

At any rate, of the war’s many consequences, three stand out as pre-eminent. First, major wars change the societies that fight and endure their consequences. The Six Day War changed the political, social-psychological, and, in at least one key case, demographic balances within all the participating states and a few others besides, with multiple and varying secondary and tertiary effects over the years. Second, despite the war’s after-optic of a smashing Arab loss, it was the best thing that ever happened to the Palestinian national movement. And third, the war catalyzed a redirection of U.S. Cold War policy in the Middle East (and arguably beyond) from one teetering on the edge of generic failure to one of significant success.

 

At this fiftieth “jubilee” anniversary of the war, buckets of ink will inevitably be spilled mooting and booting about such questions and many others; a lot already has been, and I am not reluctant to add to the bucket count.[1] But before doing so, we all need to take a deep breath to inhale as much humility as we can—to remind ourselves what exactly we are doing and what we cannot do when we exhume moldering chunks of anniversarial history for reexamination.

 

Shiny Anniversaries

 

We are so very attracted to anniversaries in the long parade of political history. We love to draw clear lessons from them, if we can—and if we can’t some others will claim to do so anyway. We are also attracted to thinking in terms of parsimonious eras with sharp lines of delineation between them; anniversaries of turning or tipping points help us mightily to draw such lines—which is precisely why we call them epochal. Wars, mostly hot but occasionally cold, figure centrally in the pantheon of such points.

 

The June 1967 Arab-Israeli War is all but universally considered to be epochal in this sense, so the recent ink flow is no wonder as journalists, scholars, memoirists, and others look for lessons and insight as to how those supposed sharp lines that divide eras were drawn. The subtitle of a new book furnishes a case in point: “The Breaking of the Middle East.”[2]

 

There is a problem here—at least one, arguably more than one. Without yet having read this book, I cannot say for sure that this subtitle is not magnificently meaningful. But I can say for sure that it puzzles me. What does it mean to say that a region of the world is “broken”? Does it imply that before the 1967 Middle East War the region was somehow whole, a description that implies adjectives such as peaceful, stable, and nestled in the warm logic of a benign cosmos; and suggests that regional wholeness also meant that its state or regime units were seen as legitimate by their own populations and by other states and regimes? So on June 4, 1967, the Middle East was whole, and by June 11, it was well on its way to being broken?

 

All of which is to say that the penchant for reposing great significance in anniversaries is often distortive, because for many it reinforces the right-angled sureties and sharp distinctions—and presumed causal chains leading into our own time bearing those precious, sought-after lessons—that historical reality rarely abides. Only by rounding off the ragged edges, usually with a rasp composed of our contemporary concerns and convictions unselfconsciously pointed backwards, can such artificial categories be devised. Ambiguity annoys most people, and so they go to some lengths to duck it, in the case of getting arms around history by generating categories, boxes, and labels into which to shove obdurate facts. History, meanwhile, remains the sprawling entropic mess it has always been and will always remain.

 

To employ the anti-ambiguity rasp presupposes, too, that the craftsman commands cause and effect. We can, after all, only simplify a reality we presume to understand in its detail. When it comes to the Six Day War, that means presuming to know how it started and why, how it ended and why, and what the war led to thereafter in an array of categories: how the postwar geopolitical trajectory of the core Middle Eastern region and its periphery spilled forth; how the region’s relationship to the key Cold War superpower protagonists shifted; the war’s impact on the domestic political cultures of participants and near-onlookers; and more besides.

 

The problem here is that we know with confidence only some of these causal skeins, and, what is more (or actually less), some of what we know has not stayed constant over the past half century. At one point, say thirty years ago, we thought we understood the Soviet government’s role in fomenting the crisis by sending false reports of events in Syria to the Egyptian leadership; after the Soviet archive opened in the early 1990s, consensus on that point has weakened as revisionist interpretations have come forth.[3] Nasser’s moving-target motives at various points in the crisis leading to war seemed clear for a time, until they no longer quite did. Several more examples of elusive once-truths could be cited.

 

Alas, every seminal event has a pre-context and a post-context: the convolutions of historical reality that give rise to an event and its causal afterflow. The further we get from the event, the greater the still-expanding post-context overshadows the pre-context, because we can see, for example, how various things turned out in 2017 in a way we could not have in, say, 1987. But so much else has happened that must, of necessity, dilute any construction of direct or preponderant causality.

 

Thus, did the war push Israeli society into becoming more religious, as many have claimed? Did it help shift Israeli politics to the Right by transforming the relationship of Orthodox Judaism to Zionism, leading Orthodox Israelis to engage on many political issues to which they had been formerly aloof? Or was that a deeper social-demographic trend that would have happened anyway, if differently, war or no war? So we face a paradox: the richer the post-context becomes for any epochal event, the poorer becomes our ability to isolate its downstream impact. As already suggested, we often enough make up for that poverty by exiling natural ambiguity before the demands of our current questions or biases. That is how we predict the past.

 

Scholars do try to isolate causal threads, of course, but differently because intellectual business models, so to speak, differ. Historians tend to seek out particularities; political scientists tend to search for general rules. Historians like their rocks fresh and jagged; political scientists like theirs rounded by patterns that flow through time. Each to their own intellectual aesthetic.

 

And the rest of us? How do we chase truth in history? Consider that if you pick up a history book and a memoir old enough to serve as an adjunct to it, you will have in your hands two different perspectives on the political world. An international political history of the 1930s written in the 2010s will take a passage of reality—say about the British, French, and American reaction to the 1935 Italian aggression against Ethiopia—and might spend two sentences or perhaps a paragraph on it. A memoir written in the 1950s by someone actually involved in debating and shaping that reaction will read very differently, recalling details, sideways connections to other issues, and nuances of policies and personalities bound to be lost in a general text if it aspires to be less than 10,000 pages long. In a history book such a mid-level event is likely to be framed as a consequence of larger forces that were leading to more portentous happenings (say, World War II); in a memoir it is more likely to be framed as both illustration of a synthetic historical moment, akin to a zeitgeist that is fully felt but is recalcitrant to reductionist analysis, and partial cause of what came after. Which do we read; which do we trust?

 

The answer is both, and wholly neither. How will the Six Day War figure in history books fifty years from now? There’s no way to know, because it will depend at least as much on what happens between now and then as it will on what happened in May and June 1967. But one thing we do know: As the post-context of the war doubles, the thinness and sameness of the description will grow, and be of little help in understanding how the main actors involved saw their circumstances. It will lose a sense of human verisimilitude. Details invariably give way to theme, and narratives grow shorter even as their truth claims grow larger. The thickness of memoirs will retain that sense of human verisimilitude. But what they provide in terms of broader context may suffer from too narrow an authorial aperture, and perhaps a bad memory in service to ego protection, if not other incidental causes of inaccuracy. As with many aspects of life, intellectual and otherwise, tradeoffs spite us in our search for clarity.

 

The point of all this?  Anniversaries are shiny. They attract a lot of attention, much of it self-interested and sentimental enough to lure some people into excessive simplifications if not outright simplemindedness. If someone will bait the hook, someone else will swallow it. We witnessed exactly such a spectacle not long ago at the 100th anniversary of Sykes-Picot, and we’ll see it again a few months hence with the 100th anniversary of the Balfour Declaration.[4] But as Max Frankel once said, “simplemindedness is not a handicap in the competition of social ideas”—or, he might have added, historical interpretations. If it gets you on TV talk shows to sell your book, no form of simplification is liable to remain out of bounds these days. After all, what is fake history if not a collection of aged fake news?

 

Shining On

 

Never mind all that: I want people to read this essay, so rest assured that I know what happened and why, and what it all means even down to today. And now that I have donned sequins and glitter, I can be almost as brief and punchy as I am shiny, as is the current custom.

 

What did the war mean for the region? Plenty. It proved to remaining doubters that the Arabs could not destroy Israel by conventional force of arms. It helped establish Israel’s permanence in the eyes of its adversaries, the world at large, and, to an extent, in the eyes of its own people. That changed Israel’s domestic political culture. It no longer felt to the same extent like a pressure-cooking society under constant siege, and that, along with demographic and other subterranean social trends, ironically loosened the political grip of Israel’s founding generation of leaders, and the Labor Party. Less than a decade after the war Revisionist Zionists came to power for the first time, and now, fifty years later, Israel has the most rightwing government in its history. Did the Six Day War directly cause that? Of course not; but it was one of many factors that steered Israeli politics toward its current circumstances.

 

The war also began the occupation, first of Golan, the West Bank, and Gaza—in time a bit less of Golan and not of Gaza at all. If you had told typical Israelis in the summer of 1967 that fifty years later the West Bank would still be essentially occupied, neither traded for peace nor annexed, they would have thought you mad or joking. Israel as an independent state was 19 years and a few weeks old on June 5, 1967. The twentieth anniversary of the war in 1987 was about the midpoint of Israel’s modern history, half within-the-Green-Line and half beyond it. Now vastly more of Israel’s history has passed with the occupation as a part of it. Many more Israelis today cannot remember Israel in its pre-June 1967 borders than can—and that includes the Arabs citizens of the state as well as their ethno-linguistic kin living in the West Bank and Gaza.

 

In Israel there is a huge open debate, and a constant more private discussion beneath it, as to how the occupation has changed the nature of Israeli society. It is a difficult debate to set premises for, because in fifty years a lot is going to change in any modern society, occupation or no occupation. My view, like that of most Israelis I know, is that the occupation has been significantly corrosive of many Israeli institutions. They would like the occupation to end if it could be ended safely; but increasingly most agree that it can’t be, at least anytime soon. The remarkable fact is that, considering the circumstances, the damage to morale and heart, beyond institutions, has not been even worse. Israel’s moral realism has proved resilient. But the damage has not been slight, and of course it is ongoing.

 

As for the Arabs, the war crushed the pretentions of Arab Socialism and of Gamal Abdel Nasser. Within what the late Malcolm Kerr called “the Arab Cold War” it played in favor of the Arab monarchies against the military-ruled republics and hence generally in favor of the West; but it did not guarantee the safety of monarchical rule everywhere: Just 27 months later the Sanusi kingdom in Libya fell to a young army colonel named Muamar Qadaffi. None of the defeated Arab states lost its leader right away: not Nasser in Egypt, or King Hussein in Jordan, or Nurredin al-Atassi in Syria. But by the late autumn of 1970 Nasser was dead and al-Atassi had been displaced by Hafez al-Assad. Rulers also rolled in Iraq, and the very next year, with the British withdrawal from East of Suez, the United Arab Emirates came into being against its own will.

 

The war, therefore, was one element—more important in some places than others—in a general roiling of Arab politics (and I haven’t even mentioned stability-challenged zones like Yemen and Sudan), those politics being pre-embedded, so to speak, in generically weak states (again, some more than others).[5] Not that Arab politics was an oasis of serenity before June 1967 either, as a glance at post-independence Syrian history will show. Indeed, the contention that the Six Day War, by hollowing out the pretensions of secular Arab nationalism for all to see, presaged the “return of Islam” with which we and many others struggle today is both true and overstated—in other words, too shiny. The frailties of secular nationalism among the Arab states preceded the war and would have multiplied on account of any number and kind of failures to come, war or no war.

 

In any event, the political impact of the Arab loss was mitigated by the “Palestine” contradiction that then lay at the heart of Arab politics. “Palestine” was, and remains to some extent, a badge of shame, for it epitomizes the failure of the Arab states to achieve its goals. Yet it is only a badge; the persistence of the conflict, sharply inflected by the 1967 loss, has served as a raison d’être for most ruling Arab elites, their unflagging opposition to Israel as a symbol of legitimacy. In the parlous context of inter-Arab politics, too, the conflict has served as the only thing on which all the Arab regimes could symbolically unite. Non-democratic Arab elites have used the conflict both as a form of street control internally, and as a jousting lance in their relations with other Arab states.

 

Yet by far the most important consequence of the Arab defeat in 1967 was to free the Palestinian national movement from the clutches of the Arab states. The theory before June 1967 was that the Arab states would destroy Israel in a convulsive, epic war, and then hand Palestine over to the Palestinians. The hysteria that overtook the Arab street leading to war shows how widespread this theory was, and the war itself showed how hollow a promise it was. So the Palestinians took matters into their own hands for the first time, seizing control of the Palestine Liberation Organization from its Egyptian sponsors and reversing the theoretical dynamic of liberation:  Palestinians would liberate Palestine, and that victory would supercharge and unify the Arabs to face the hydra-headed monster of Western imperialism. The key bookends of this transformation as it manifested itself in Arab politics writ large were the Rabat Arab Summit of 1974, which passed responsibility for “occupied Palestine” from Jordan to the PLO, and the 1988 decision by King Hussein to formally relinquish Jordan’s association with the West Bank, which it had annexed and ruled for 18 years after the 1949 Rhodes Armistice agreements.

 

But how would the Palestinians themselves, led by the new and authentic PLO, liberate Palestine? They had in mind a revolutionary people’s war, an insurrection focused on the territories Israel newly occupied. It took its inspiration from lukewarm Maoism and its example from the Vietcong. The attempted insurrection in the West Bank failed miserably and rapidly; terrorist attacks mounted from east of the Jordan and across the border with Egypt became the next tactical phase as Palestinian nationalism’s organizational expression fractured. In time, Palestinian use of contiguous lands in Jordan and later in Lebanon to launch repeated terror attacks against Israeli civilians sparked civil wars in both countries. It did not bring about the “liberation” of even one square centimeter of “Palestine.”

 

Terrorism, however, did put the Palestinian issue “on the map” for much of the world, and now, fifty years later, Palestinians can have a state if their leaders really want one and are prepared to do what it takes to get it—the evidence so far suggesting that they don’t, and won’t. Nevertheless, looking back from fifty years’ hindsight, the Six Day War was about the best thing that could have happened for the Palestinians; that fact that they have not consolidated that windfall politically is their own doing, but everyone’s tragedy.

 

As to terrorism, it is true that the pusillanimous behavior of many governments in the 1970s, including some allied in NATO to the United States, helped the PLO shoot, bomb, and murder its way to political respectability. So one might venture that by helping to show that terrorism post-Six Day War can work at least to some extent, these governments bear some responsibility for the metathesis of nationalist, instrumentalist terrorism into the mass-murder apocalyptical kind we have witnessed more recently with al-Qaeda and ISIS. To me it’s another in a series of shiny arguments, more superficially attractive than fully persuasive. It is not entirely baseless, however.

 

But far more important than what the war did for the thinking of the Palestinians was what it did to the thinking of the Arab state leaders whose lands were now under Israeli occupation: Egypt, Jordan, and Syria.  Before the war, Arab support for “Palestine” was highly theoretical, highly ineffectual, and in truth amounted merely to a symbolic football the Arab regimes used to compete with one another in the ethereal arena of pan-Arab fantasies. Now, suddenly, the core national interests of three Arab states—including the largest and most important one, Egypt—became directly and ineluctably entwined with the reality as opposed to the symbol of Israel.

 

The Egyptians, particularly after Nasser’s death brought Anwar el-Sadat to power, got downright pragmatic. Israel had something these three states wanted—chunks of their land. And the Egyptian and Jordanian leaderships, at least, knew that a price would have to be paid to redeem that pragmatism. Complications aplenty there were, as anyone who lived through the dozen years after the 1967 War knows well. Nevertheless, this critical divide among the Arabs—between state leaders who could afford to remain only symbolically engaged and those who could not—shaped inter-Arab politics then and still does to some degree today. First Egypt in March 1979 and then Jordan in October 1994 paid the price and made peace with Israel. It seemed like forever passed between June 1967 and March 1979, but it was less than a dozen years—quick by historical standards.

 

While Egypt recovered the entire Sinai through its peace arrangement with Israel, Jordan did not recover the West Bank. The war had shifted the political demography of the Hashemite Kingdom, sending more Palestinians to live among East Bankers—some now refugees twice over and some for the first time. The consequence was to intensify Jordan’s internalization of its problem with Palestinian nationalism: It had lost land but gained souls whose fealty to the monarchy was presumably weak. The benefit of peace to Jordan in 1984, and hence its main purpose from King Hussein’s point of view, was therefore not to regain territory but to strengthen the stake that both Israel and the United States had in Jordan’s stability in the face of future challenge from any quarter, internal and external alike.

 

Syria, do note, did not follow the Egyptian and Jordanian path to peace, and so the Golan Heights remain for all practical purposes part of Israel. The reasons have to do with the complex sectarian demography of the country, and specifically with the fact that since 1970 Syria has been ruled by a minoritarian sect in loose confederation with the country’s other non-Sunni minorities. The Alawi regime has needed the symbolic pan-Arab mantle of the Palestinian cause more than any other Arab state, particularly as one with a border with Israel. Regime leaders anyway did not consider the Golan to be their sectarian patrimony, but more important, peace and normalization seemed to the Syrian leadership more of a threat to its longevity (and to its ability to meddle in Lebanese affairs) than a benefit. Now that Syria as a territorial unit has dissolved in a brutal civil war, the legacy of 1967 has been rendered all but moot.

 

Does that mean that Egypt and Jordan essentially sold out the Palestinians, making a separate peace? Well, much political theater aside, yes. But they really had no choice, and not selling out the Palestinians would not have gained the Palestinians what they wanted anyway. That, in turn, left the Palestinians with little choice. Eventually, the PLO leadership also decided to “engage” Israel directly, but without giving up what it still called the “armed struggle.”

 

Its partial pragmatism, tactical in character, gained the PLO a partial advance for the Palestinians through the truncated Oslo process: a kind of government with a presence in Palestine; some “police” under arms; a transitional capital in Ramallah; wide international recognition; and more. Withal, the “territories” remain under Israeli security control, and the Palestinian economy (jobs, electricity grid, water, and more) remains essentially a hostage to Israel’s.

 

This has given rise to perhaps the most underappreciated irony in a conflict replete with them: First Israel internalized the Palestinian nationalist problem in June 1967 by occupying at length the West Bank and Gaza, and then the PLO internalized its Israel problem by drifting via Oslo into essential dependence on Israel for basic sustenance and even security support (against Hamas, for example). Note that it was hard for Israel to bomb PLO headquarters in Tunis in October 1985, but very easy to send a tank column into downtown Ramallah ten years later. It’s all so very odd, you may think, but there you have it.

 

The Bigger Picture

 

Now to the larger, international scene. What the Six Day War showed was that Soviet patronage of the Arabs and arms sales to them could deliver neither victory to the Arabs nor reflected advantage for the Soviet Union. This devalued the allure of Soviet regional overtures reassured the Western-oriented Arab regimes and hence played directly into the portfolio of U.S. and Western interests: keep the Soviets out, the oil flowing, and Israel in existence (the latter construed at the time as a moral-historical obligation, not a strategic desideratum).

 

The Johnson administration figured the essence out, which is why in the aftermath of the war it did not do what the Eisenhower administration did after the Suez War of 1956: pressure Israel to leave the territories it had conquered in return for promises that, in the event, turned out to be worthless. It rather brokered a new document—UNSCR 242—calling for withdrawal from territories (not “the” territories) in return for peace.

 

But it was not until the War of Attrition broke out in 1969 around and above the Suez Canal—a direct follow-on to the Six Day War—that the new Nixon administration codified in policy this basic strategic understanding. To prevent and if possible roll back Soviet inroads in the Middle East, the U.S. government would guarantee continued Israeli military superiority—that was the start of the major U.S. military supply relationship to Israel that endures today (the younger set may not know it, but Israel won the Six Day War with a French-supplied air force). In short, nothing the Soviets could supply or do would help the Arabs regain their lands or make good their threats. The events of the Jordanian Civil War in September 1970, and the way Nixon administration principles insisted on interpreting and speaking about that civil war, only deepened the conviction and the anchors of the policy.

 

On balance, the policy worked well, despite one painful interruption. By July 1972, President Sadat had sent a huge Soviet military mission packing out of Egypt, and was all but begging the United States to open a new relationship. Egypt had been by far the most critical of Soviet clients in the Middle East, and Sadat’s volte face represented a huge victory for U.S. diplomacy. Alas, neither the victory-besotted Israelis nor the increasingly distracted Americans paid Sadat the attention he craved—so he taunted the Soviets to give him just enough stuff to draw Jerusalem and Washington’s eyes his way: He started a war in October 1973. This also worked, leading as already noted to the March 1979 peace treaty—a geopolitical and psychological game-changer in the region and, ultimately, beyond.

 

For most practical purposes, Israel’s role as an effective proxy for U.S. power in the Middle East endured through the end of the Cold War, although its benefits paid out quietly, more often than not in what trouble it deterred as opposed to actively fought.[6] And the Israeli-Egyptian relationship—imperfect as it may be—still endures as a guarantee that there can be no more Arab-Israeli conventional wars on the scale of 1967 or even 1973. These are both, at least partially, strategic achievements born of the conjoining of Israeli power and American diplomacy, and—it bears mentioning—these are achievements that were constructed and made to endure pretty much regardless of the state of play in Israel’s relations with the Palestinians.

 

Obviously, the end of the Cold War put paid to the structure of this regional American strategy, its logic dissipated through victory. In that sense, the larger global strategic impact of the Six Day War ended when the Berlin Wall fell. While Israel remains a strategic partner of the United States in the post-Cold War environment, largely through intelligence sharing and other activities, its value as strategic proxy diminished as the focus of U.S. concerns moved east, toward Iraq and the Gulf. In the 1991 Gulf War, for example, Israel through no fault of its own became a complication for American policy—a target set for Iraqi scuds—not an asset, such that the U.S. government pleaded with its Israel counterpart not to use its military power against a common foe.

 

Amid the sectarian and proxy wars of the present moment in the region, Israeli arms lack any point of political entrée that can aid U.S. policy. Even when it comes to counterterrorism efforts, Israeli intelligence is indeed valuable but we will not see Israeli special forces attacking salafi terrorist organizations far from home. The last thing Israel needs is to persuade still more murderous enemies to gaze its way.

 

Only if the two parties come to focus on a common enemy—never the case during the Cold War, by the way, when for Israel the Arabs were the threat and for the United States the Soviets were the threat—could a truly robust U.S.-Israeli strategic partnership be born anew. And that common enemy, which could bring in also many Sunni Arab states and possibly Turkey as well, is of course Iran. But we are now very deep into the post-context of the Six Day War, more than six degrees of separation from any plausible causal skein leading back to June 1967.

 

A Smaller Picture

 

The war affected the political and social-psychological condition not only of state actors but of some others as well. As the Middle East crisis deepened in May 1967, I was a (nearly) 16-year old Jewish high school student in the Washington, D.C. area. Just like every American who was of age in November 1963 can remember where they were and what they were doing when they heard that President Kennedy had been assassinated, I suspect that just about every Jew of age anywhere in the world in May and June of 1967 can remember where they were and what they were doing when they heard that the war had started, and how they felt when it had ended.

 

We had been frightened, and afterwards we were relieved and even elated. It turned out that a lot of what we thought was true about the state of affairs at the time was incorrect. That was hardly a unique experience, but more important, over time the effects of the Six Day War on American Jewry and other Jewish communities outside Israel were dramatic—and the triangular relationship between Israel, American Jewry, and the United States has never since been the same.[7]

 

Figuring it all out has borne its own challenges, surprises, and disappointments. Those on all three sides who thought they knew what was going on—who was dependent on whom, who could count on whom, who had political leverage over whom, and so on—learned better, often the hard way. But none of this has involved armies with modern weapons and high-level state diplomacies interacting; no, it is truly complicated and tends to generate narratives that are very, very shiny—so let’s just leave it at that.

 

If You Pick Up the Gun, You Roll the Dice 

 

Let us conclude by returning to where we began, using another’s much earlier conclusion as our prooftext. On Saturday, June 3, 1967, Israeli Prime Minister Levi Eshkol concluded a meeting of his inner cabinet with these words: “Nothing will be settled by a military victory. The Arabs will still be here.”

 

Eshkol (as well as the out-of-office but still prominent David Ben-Gurion) had counseled patience and restraint to Israel’s confident military leadership as the spring 1967 crisis grew, and only reluctantly came to the decision for war. Keenly sensing the ironies of history—Jewish history not least—he knew that the war would not be politically conclusive. He realized that whatever immediate threats needed to be extinguished, war would not deliver peace and security before, if ever, it delivered mixed and unanticipated consequences. He was right.

 

Not even the shrewdest statesmen are wise enough to foresee the consequences of a major war: When you pick up the gun, you roll the dice. That, I think, is no shiny lesson, but one more likely for the historically literate to recall the past’s many dull pains. May it help future leaders to control their own and others’ expectations if use force they must.

_____________

[1] I have written on the anniversary of the Six Day War before:  See “Arab Loss Had Profound Effect on Politics in the Middle East,” Jewish Exponent, June 5, 1987; “1967: One War Won, a Few Others Started,” Newsday, April 30, 1998; and “Six Days, and Forty Years,” The American Spectator, June 5, 2007.

 

[2] Guy Laron, The Six-Day War: The Breaking of the Middle East (Yale University Press).

[3] See, for example, Isabella Ginor & Gideon Remez, Foxbats Over Dimona: The Soviets’ Nuclear Gamble in the Six-Day War (Yale University Press, 2007).

[4]  On the former, note my “The Bullshistory of “Sykes-Picot”, The American Interest Online, May 16, 2016.

[5] For detail on what is meant by “pre-embedded” in “generically weak states,” see my “The Fall of Empires and the Formation of the Modern Middle East,” Orbis (Spring 2016).

[6] A point emphasized in Michael Mandelbaum, “1967’s Gift to America,” The American Interest Online, June 2, 2017.

[7] I have written of this triangular relationship elsewhere: “The Triangle Connecting the U.S., Israel and American Jewry May Be Coming Apart,” Tablet, November 5, 2013.

________________

Israel Kicks Hostile Arab Armies’ Butts 50 Yrs. Ago

John R. Houk

© June 6, 2017

____________

The Six Day and Fifty Years War

 

The Foreign Policy Research Institute, founded in 1955, is a non-partisan, non-profit 501(c)(3) organization devoted to bringing the insights of scholarship to bear on the development of policies that advance U.S. national interests. In the tradition of our founder, Ambassador Robert Strausz-Hupé, Philadelphia-based FPRI embraces history and geography to illuminate foreign policy challenges facing the United States. More about FPRI »

 

Foreign Policy Research Institute · 1528 Walnut St., Ste. 610 · Philadelphia, PA 19102 Tel: 1.215.732.3774 Fax: 1.215.732.4401 www.fpri.org

 

Copyright © 2000–2017. All Rights Reserved.

 

Standing with Sources and more FDR Criticism – PT 3


Venona Intercepts

John R. Houk

© August 20, 2014

 

This will be the last part relating to Franklin D. Roosevelt’s Administration. Parts One and Two focused on the credibility of the sources that show FDR was not quite the American hero that Democrats and Progressives would have you believe. I think I covered the New Deal as much as I want to in the post “Nefarious Presidential Actions – Calvin Coolidge to FDR”. This post will focus on Soviet Marxist infiltration of FDR’s Administration.

 

To give you an idea of how serious Soviet infiltration check out this 1995 article from the Baltimore Sun:

 

An aggressive Soviet spy network penetrated a key strategy meeting between President Franklin D. Roosevelt and British Prime Minister Winston Churchill during World War II and tried to recruit friends of first lady Eleanor Roosevelt, according to decoded Soviet messages released yesterday by the National Security Agency.

 

NSA declassified 250 messages sent between Moscow and the Soviet spy headquarters in New York in 1942 and 1943.

 

They confirm that a number of wartime American intelligence agents were secretly working for the Kremlin.

 

The messages from the so-called “Venona” project document the tireless efforts of Soviet leader Josef Stalin to recruit agents across the United States and Mexico.

 

 

The cables also give a glimpse of Soviet secret police chief Lavrenti P. Beria’s recruitment, payment and management of his global network of spies, including a warning sent to Soviet agents around the world against “talkativeness.”

 

 

A message dated May 29, 1943, to Moscow from the NKVD unit in New York, whose agents worked under the cover of the Soviet consulate, trade mission and TASS news agency, includes a report from a high-level American agent code-named simply “19.”

 

“19 reports that KAPITAN [the code name for President Roosevelt] and KABAN [or Wild Boar, the code name for Churchill] during conversations in the COUNTRY invited 19 to join them," says the cable.

 

 

But from the timing, NSA historians concluded that the still-unidentified "19" was a high-level agent who had penetrated Roosevelt's inner circle and attended at least part of the two-week conference in Washington and Williamsburg, Va., code-named Trident, a major strategy meeting.

 

 

The 250 messages are the second of a series of planned releases of the cables intercepted between 1942 and 1946 and decoded and analyzed over many years under the American code name Venona.

 

The release of the first 49 Venona messages in July drew national attention in part because they provided strong evidence that Ethel and Julius Rosenberg were indeed Soviet spies.

 

… (Soviets penetrated Roosevelt summit Declassified files show American spied on Churchill meeting; By SCOTT SHANE AND TOM BOWMAN; Baltimore Sun; 10/13/1995)

 

The idea of Soviet infiltration is not a novel idea of Right Wing nut jobs as a Leftist might try to deceive you. We are talking the beginning of public revelations occurring in this article in 1995. Thanks to the largesse of Russia not long ago and a bit unwittingly releasing their version of the Venona Papers to the public even more insidiousness has been revealed about FDR’s Administration. Alexander Vassiliev and his Notebooks [Note on Reliability] of briefly declassified KGB documents by post-Soviet Russia verifies and even updates the revelations of the Venona Project.

 

The biggest fish of Soviet infiltration seems to be the code name Agent 19. The identity of Agent 19 among Conservatives exposing Soviet infiltration has turned out to be quite heated. The identity debate about Agent 19 is Harry Hopkins vs. Laurence Duggan.

 

I have always leaned to M. Stanton Evans as a primary source on this issue and he insists Roosevelt aide and confidante Harry Hopkins is Agent 19. Those who lean to this outlook:

 

·         Diana West

 

·         Herbert Romerstein

 

·         Eduard Mark (on Harry HopkinsIdiot Unwitting Source to Soviets but not spy on page 7 of pdf)

 

Those who lean to the outlook that Laurence Duggan was Agent 19:

 

·         John Earl Haynes (on Agent 19)

 

·         Harvey Klehr (on Agent 19)

 

·         Ronald Radosh (Hopkins/Duggan Agent 19 Controversy)

 

·         Alexander Vassiliev (with Allen Weinstein – Duggan is Agent 19)

 

I found a Jeff Lipkes article that has constructive criticism on the scholarship of mutual criticism between Diana West and Ronald Radosh:

 

 

Radosh caricatures West’s arguments, misrepresents her conclusions, and ignores some of the book’s major themes and the contents of a number of chapters.  He exaggerates the centrality of certain claims, in order to attack them.  However, he was provoked.

The problems with the book, though, have less to do with West’s treatment of the Soviet penetration of the U.S. government or its impact on “our nation’s character,” the subtitle her critics ignore, as much as with its consequences for the prosecution of World War II.  Her unfamiliarity with military history leads her to overemphasize the role of Communist agents in influencing strategic decisions.  She also ignores the wider context of some decisions, rides her counterfactuals too hard, and engages in some rhetorical overkill.

 

Both Radosh and West tend to see things in black and white.  For West, Stalin’s agents were responsible for Soviet control of half of Europe for nearly 45 years.  For Radosh, they had nothing to do with it.  The truth, unsurprisingly, is somewhere in between.

 

 

The first thing any historian is bound to notice about American Betrayal is that it doesn’t have a “scholarly apparatus” -- acknowledgements and a bibliography -- which indicate the archives and other primary sources the author consulted, and also help identify sources in endnotes.  (N.B., A bibliography has been prepared recently by a supporter of West.)

Historians are taught to check these first, before they peek at the conclusion, to see what new evidence the writer is drawing on and to whom he or she is indebted.

 

West does not rely entirely on secondary sources; she’s looked at volumes of FRUS [Foreign Relations of the United States] and at other government documents online, at the New York Times and other papers and magazines.

 

And she’s done a prodigious amount of reading, not only the post-Venona books on Soviet subversion and some diplomatic, political, and cultural history, but what would also be considered primary sources:  the cornucopia of books and articles published in the ‘30s, ‘40s and early ‘50s by defectors, former communists, those investigating them, disillusioned government officials and army officers, and others with first-hand experience of the USSR and the CPUSA.  This is a literature known to specialists, of course, but otherwise (except for Chambers’ Witness) forgotten today.

 

Unfortunately, the vivid writing sometimes creates problems.  Radosh targets, correctly, the phrase “de facto occupation,” West’s characterization of Soviet penetration of the government.  Nothing is repeated just once in American Betrayal.  I lost count of the number of times West uses the phrase.  After awhile, she drops the “de facto” fig leaf.

 

This is bound to irritate any historian of the Cold War.

 

Readers would have little sense from Radosh’s review that American Betrayal is about the cover-up, broadly defined, as much as it is about the activities of Communists and fellow travellers.

This had two phases.  The first began in 1933, with the diplomatic recognition of the Soviet Union in the midst of what was truly one of the crimes of the century, the war on Ukrainian and Russian peasants, the forced collectivization launched at the end of 1929.  The U.S. government was obliged to lie, to pass along Soviet disinformation.  It’s revealing that FDR, at Stalin’s behest, shut down the anti-Communist Eastern European section of the State Department, assigning its members to other posts and dispersing its excellent library.

 

The second, post-war phase persists down to the present, West argues.  While today only a few unregenerate English professors deny Soviet crimes, the Leftist consensus prevails:  those who investigated the CPUSA’s subversive activities were Red-baiters and witch-hunters; Party members were harmless idealists, persecuted for their high principles.  Che still adorns t-shirts; Warhol’s Mao hangs in living rooms.   And the film industry continues its blackout of Communist crimes.  For Hollywood, there are no Soviet villains.

 

 

… Diana West is writing about a double betrayal, and the second betrayal is ultimately more important.  West argues that it has corrupted the country and rendered it defenseless.

 

… She is “connecting the dots” in a way that blinkered historians have failed to do.

The dots lead in three directions:

 

·         The extent of subversion of the U.S. government;

 

·         The consequences for foreign policy and military strategy;

 

·         The implications for the response to Islam in the West today;

 

Each deserves a close look.

 

 

Was HLH also a Soviet agent?

 

In an essay published in 1998, Air Force historian Eduard Mark theorized, by the process of elimination, that he was “Agent 19” mentioned in Venona 812.  Andrew and Mitrokhin called the article “a detailed, meticulous, and persuasive study,” but the Vassiliev papers revealed that this individual was in fact Lawrence Duggan, a State Department official.  The identity of 19 was disclosed in 2009, in Haynes, Klehr, and Vassiliev’s Spies.

 

Instead of merely calling West’s attention to this (the conclusion had also been ignored in books by Romerstein and Breindel and by Evans and Romerstein), Radosh attacked West for not knowing about an alleged retraction Mark had made at a 2009 conference shortly before his death.  The details of this retraction morphed alarmingly.  In any case, it was not recorded and Mark put nothing in writing.  The pursuit of this red herring involved lengthy email exchanges and angry recriminations.

 

West’s other source for identifying Hopkins as an agent was the recollection of defector Oleg Gordievsky of a lecture by Iskhak Akhmerov, “illegal” NKVD spy chief during the war. …

 

 

Radosh’s criticism is worth noting for what it reveals about his lingering affection for FDR.

 

Gordievsky, Andrew writes, eventually decided that Hopkins was “an unconscious agent.”  This is not a helpful label.  Whether he was receiving instructions or simply anticipating Stalin’s wishes, he was conscious of what he was doing. The authors’ conclusion suggests that they believe Akhmerov to have been exaggerating, but they offer no evidence to support this assumption.  The identification of HLH as a Soviet agent is not something anyone would have forgotten in 40 years, or 60, or 80.

 

Unfortunately, West’s rhetorical excesses again act as a red flag.  Repeatedly, Lend-Lease is labeled “a rogue operation.”  Readers of American Betrayal would have no clue that, as the name suggests, the program was originally intended to help Britain …

 

READ ENTIRETY (Diana and Ron: What Was Going On? By Jeff Lipkes; American Thinker; 7/4/14)

 

Lipkes has a Part Two to the Radosh/West pertaining to the pluses and minuses of their venomous tête-à-tête between each entitled, “Diana and Ron: The Second Front”. This Lipkes Part Two is less about Soviet infiltration in the U.S. government and more about FDR Administration decisions that were bad for the Free World and beneficial for the spread of Soviet Communism.

 

I tend to like the idea that Harry Hopkins was an agent working on behalf of the USSR largely because of his involvement in developing the Socialist elements of the New Deal. You couple the New Deal Socialism with Hopkins’ obvious love for everything Soviet Union makes him a major contributor to the earlier successes of Soviet aggression in Post-WWII Europe and Third World client States. Even if Hopkins was not the elusive Agent 19 of the Venona Papers, his actions indicate treasonous decisions that aided and abetted an enemy that had the goal of ending American Liberty to procreate global Marxist-Leninist-Stalinism. A situation of the USSR being a more overt enemy after WWII.

 

Vice President Henry Wallace

 

Another big dog after Harry Hopkins was Vice President Henry Wallace except other than fraternization there is a less provable link as a Soviet agent than Hopkins.

 

… J. Edgar Hoover warned Roosevelt that Wallace was friendly with Communists in Hollywood and had inappropriate connections with overseas Communists, including in the Soviet Union. Roosevelt didn’t believe all of it but did not need such controversy. In his usual sadistic manner, Roosevelt gave Wallace all the hints he felt were called for that he wasn’t his or the party’s choice, and selected Missouri senator Harry S. Truman in his place. … (The Real Henry Wallace; By Conrad Black; National Review Online; 1/17/13 4:00 AM) 

 

 

Asked to what extent the Communist underground network influenced American policy, Klehr responds with one of history's great "what if's." In this case, it's what if Henry Wallace had become president of the United States, which he would have had FDR died a year earlier. Wallace served as vice president during FDR's third term and later ran for president on the Progressive ticket in 1948 with Communist Party support.

. . . . Klehr notes that Wallace once mentioned that if he'd been president he would have made Laurence Duggan, a State Department specialist on Latin America, his secretary of state and, for his treasury secretary, Wallace said he would have chosen Harry Dexter White, a highly placed treasury official influential in deciding post-World War II American economic policy.

. . . . Both Duggan and White were communists whose politics long were suspected or known but about whose party activities more is being learned, says Klehr. Duggan and White's elevation to a Wallace Cabinet never happened, of course. But that their names were bandied by a former U.S. vice president as possibilities for top posts underlines their closeness to power and the role secret Communists had come to play in Washington affairs.

 

… (We Told You So - Secret Venona Intercepts; By Stephen Goode; Free Republic – Originally Insight on the News; 7/6/02 11:31:56 AM – Originally Vol. 13, No. 37 -- Oct. 6-13, 1997)

 

Harry Dexter White

 

 

… Today, however, a great deal more is known than was known in previous years about the secret maneuverings and treasonous activities at the top levels of the Roosevelt administration that caused the Japanese attack on our naval forces at Pearl. Documents released from the decoded Venona Files, from the Soviet KGB archives, from our own National Archives, and memoirs of Soviet officials now confirm what noted anti-communist writers, Congressional investigations, Communist Party defectors, and FBI documents had stated for decades: Harry Dexter White (shown), assistant secretary of the treasury in the administration of Franklin Delano Roosevelt, was a top Soviet spy and agent of influence who not only caused incalculable harm to the United States, but also materially assisted Soviet dictator Joseph Stalin’s spreading of terror and tyranny throughout the entire world.

 

Harry Dexter White, a top advisor to Secretary of the Treasury Henry Morgenthau, Jr. and President Franklin Roosevelt, is remembered chiefly as the architect of the Bretton Woods Conference [Outside Heritage Foundation Link] that created the International Monetary Fund (IMF) and World Bank, but he also played a key role in bringing about the “Day of Infamy,” by doing everything within his power to scuttle the peace efforts of the forces within the Japanese government that were striving to avoid war with the United States. White authored an ultimatum adopted as official policy by FDR that upped the ante of belligerent acts Roosevelt was directing at Japan.

 

…  It was also aimed at guaranteeing the rise to power of Japan’s political forces that were beating the drums for war. This is precisely — and predictably — what happened. However, White did not undertake this move on his own initiative, it is important to note, but as a directive of the NKVD (an earlier name for the Soviet KGB). His Kremlin bosses were most anxious for assurance that Japan would not attack the Soviet Union; they thus expended great efforts through their spy and propaganda networks in Japan, Europe, and the United States to ensure that Japan would strike America, rather than the U.S.S.R.

 

READ ENTIRETY (The Communist Agent Who Caused Pearl Harbor — and Global Economic Havoc; By William F. Jasper; The New American; 12/11/13 15:34)

 

Laurence Duggan

 

 

Meanwhile, I can prove that Murrow's good friend Lawrence Duggan was a Soviet spy responsible for having innocent people murdered. The brilliant and perceptive journalist Murrow was not only unaware of the hundreds of Soviet spies running loose in the U.S. government, he was also unaware that his own dear friend Duggan was a Soviet spy -- his friend on whose behalf corpses littered the Swiss landscape.

Contrary to the image of the Black Night of Fascism (BNOF) under McCarthy leading to mass suicide with bodies constantly falling on the heads of pedestrians in Manhattan, Duggan was the only suicide. After being questioned by the FBI, Duggan leapt from a window. Of course, given the people he was doing business with, he may have been pushed.

After Duggan's death, Murrow, along with the rest of the howling establishment, angrily denounced the idea that Duggan could possibly have been disloyal to America.

Well, now we know the truth. Decrypted Soviet cables and mountains of documents from Soviet archives prove beyond doubt that Lawrence Duggan was one of Stalin's most important spies. "McCarthyism" didn't kill him; his guilt did.

During the height of the Soviet purges in the mid-'30s, as millions of innocents were being tortured, exiled and killed on Stalin's orders, Murrow's good pal Duggan was using his position at the State Department to pass important documents to the Soviets. The documents were so sensitive, Duggan had to return the originals to the State Department before the end of the day. Some were so important, they were sent directly to Stalin and Molotov.

 

… (Are You Now or Have You Ever Been a Second-Rate Filmmaker? By Ann Coulter; Real Clear Politics; 11/17/05)

 

Lauchlin Currie

 

 

Currie, an administrative assistant to FDR, was instrumental in the U.S.-government wide communist plot to turn China Red.

 

But that’s not all he did. From U.S. and Soviet archival sources that began opening in 1995, we have learned that Currie passed secret documents and intelligence to Soviet spymasters.

 

Currie also used his stature as a White House aide to stop investigations into the activities of other American traitors operating inside government.

 

How does stimulus spending sound now on discovering that this bona fide Soviet agent was its leading proponent? In “Roosevelt, the Great Depression and the Economics of Recovery,” Elliott Rosen, professor emeritus of history at Rutgers, writes:

 

“The initial rationale for public expenditure as a stimulus to the economy was provided by Currie, who won a wide and influential audience in the Roosevelt administration.”

 

As assistant research director for the Federal Reserve, his position before moving to the White House, “Currie provided an economic rationale” for deficit spending. “Wartime aside,” Rosen writes, “no precedent existed for budget unbalance.”

 

Not surprisingly, another Currie project was to push for the “abandonment of the concept of annual budget balance.”

 

So that’s where balanced budgets went, and stimulus spending came from. Think of it: One agent of communist influence in high places and the U.S. economy was revolutionized.

 

If only Americans could learn to recognize a Bolshevik plot when they see one.

 

… (Federal Stimulus Spending the Brainchild of a Soviet Spy; posted by Lonely Conservative; The Lonely Conservative; 10/9/11)

 

Alger Hiss

 

It has been 50 years since Alger Hiss was convicted of perjury for denying that he had been a Soviet spy, but his case continues to fascinate and stir controversy. … enough material has been found in other files--in Moscow, Eastern Europe, and Washington--to enable historians to write several new works that leave almost no room for doubt about Hiss's guilt. …

 

 

On the surface, Hiss was an unlikely Communist. Born in 1904, he graduated from Johns Hopkins and Harvard Law School and served as a clerk to Supreme Court Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes. Hiss then practiced law in Boston and New York but returned to Washington following the election of Franklin Roosevelt to work in the New Deal. Hiss held a variety of positions and finally settled at the State Department in 1936 as an aide to Assistant Secretary of State Francis B. Sayre, who was former President Woodrow Wilson's son-in-law.

 

 

Hiss rose steadily at State. During the war, he was heavily involved in postwar planning and laying the foundations for the UN. In early 1945, he was part of the State Department contingent that traveled to Yalta with President Roosevelt, and that spring he served as Secretary General of the UN organizing conference in San Francisco. Soon after, however, on the basis of Chambers's and Bentley's information, the FBI and State Department security began investigating Hiss; although he was not proven to be a Communist or a spy, enough concerns were raised that Hiss was forced to resign from State in December 1946. Hiss's public reputation remained strong, however, and, with the help of John Foster Dulles, he was appointed head of the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, beginning 1 February 1947.

 

Hiss flatly denied Chambers's HUAC charges. The Committee--spurred by a freshman Representative from California, Richard M. Nixon--frantically checked the two stories. On 17 August 1948, Nixon brought Hiss and Chambers together, and Hiss admitted knowing Chambers slightly during the 1930s, but under the name George Crosley. Hiss still denied ever being a Communist, and challenged Chambers to repeat the charges in public, without the immunity afforded by testimony. Chambers did so on the radio show Meet the Press , on 27 September; Hiss filed a slander suit.

 

The Pumpkin Papers

 

A dramatic sequence of events followed. On 4 November 1948, as he gave a deposition for the suit, Chambers changed his story and claimed that Hiss not only had been a Communist but also a Soviet spy. For the first time, Chambers produced physical evidence to back up his charge. Before deserting the Soviet cause, he had hidden microfilms, typewritten copies of State Department documents, and notes in Hiss's handwriting that summarized other State documents in an unused dumbwaiter in his wife's nephew's apartment in Brooklyn. On 14 November, Chambers retrieved the package, and two days later he handed the papers to his attorneys (he held onto the microfilms until December, hiding them in a pumpkin at his farm in Maryland; ever since, the entire collection has been known as the Pumpkin Papers). The papers, notes, and microfilms dated from December 1937 through February 1938; Chambers claimed that they were samples of the materials Hiss had provided for passage to the Soviets and that Hiss's wife, Priscilla, had been the typist.

 

The papers and microfilms soon were authenticated, and Hiss was indicted for perjury--the statute of limitations for espionage during the 1930s having long expired--on 15 December. The formal charge, based on the Pumpkin Papers, was that he had lied when he told the grand jury that he neither seen Chambers nor passed documents to him in February and March 1938.

 

 

·         Also in 1992, a Hungarian historian, Maria Schmidt, found the original transcripts of Noel Field's interrogation by the Hungarian secret police in 1954. Schmidt confirmed Karel Kaplan's original description of Field's statements, which corroborated Massing's testimony by describing how Hiss had tried to recruit him for his own spy ring.

 

·         In October 1996, the CIA and NSA released the Venona files, copies of decrypted Soviet intelligence cables from the 1930s and 1940s. The most famous of the cables, dated 30 March 1945, describes ALES, the covername for an American agent who had been working for Soviet military intelligence since 1935, attended the Yalta conference, and then gone on to Moscow where Soviet Foreign Minister Vyshinsky thanked him for his work. Of the Americans at Yalta who then went to Moscow with Secretary of State Stettinius, only Hiss fits this profile.

 

·         In return for payments from Random House, Allen Weinstein and Alexander Vassiliev, a former KGB officer turned journalist, were granted access to Stalin-era files from the KGB and its predecessors during 1994-96. Among the files they found documents confirming Hede Massing's account of Hiss's attempt to recruit Noel Field and several references to ALES, including one that described him as a "strong, determined man with a firm and resolute character, who is aware that he is a Communist with all the consequences of illegal status."

 

… (The Alger Hiss Case – UNCLASSIFIED; CIA.gov; 5/8/07 08:59 AM Last Updated 9/3/11 02:57 PM)

 

Whittaker Chambers

 

 

One such writer was Whittaker Chambers, whose autobiography Witness, published in 1952, details his life as an agent in the Fourth Section of Soviet Military Intelligence from 1932 to 1938, where he coordinated espionage activities with high-ranking United States government officials. Witness also movingly explains Chambers' departure from Communism and his conversion to Christianity. From his conversion, Chambers grasped that revolutionary ideology lied about the nature of man and the source of his being. The sources of Chambers' ascent and the witness he made are worth recalling in our own period of late-modern anomie.

 

 

Chambers' conversion inspired him to atone for his past betrayal of his country. He divulged to the federal government information about the Soviet espionage cell he had organized during the 1930s in Washington, its membership, and his complicity in its operation. Of those officials in Chambers' Soviet-allied cell, Alger Hiss, Director of the Office of Special Political Affairs in the Department of State and Chambers' close friend, would prove to be the most consequential. Hiss formally denied any involvement in Communist activities and insisted that he had never even met "that man named Whittaker Chambers." The truth was that Hiss and Chambers had been close friends in their subversive activities, and even their wives and children had frequently socialized together.

 

Alger Hiss had regularly passed State Department documents to Chambers during the 1930s; in turn, Chambers carried them to various handlers, who then sent them to Soviet authorities. … READ ENTIRETY (Two Faiths: The Witness of Whittaker Chambers; By Richard M. Reinsch; Acton Institute; Volume 22, Number 1 - Winter 2012)

 

Julius and Ethel Rosenberg

 

Julius and Ethel Rosenberg were executed 55 years ago, on June 19, 1953. But last week, they were back in the headlines when Morton Sobell, the co-defendant in their famous espionage trial, finally admitted that he and his friend, Julius, had both been Soviet agents.

 

 

… The Rosenbergs were Soviet spies, and not minor ones either. Not only did they try their best to give the Soviets top atomic secrets from the Manhattan Project, they succeeded in handing over top military data on sonar and on radar that was used by the Russians to shoot down American planes in the Korean and Vietnam wars. That's long been known, and Sobell confirmed it again last week.

 

READ ENTIRETY (Case closed: The Rosenbergs were Soviet spies; By RONALD RADOSH; LA Times; 9/17/08)

 

Here is a history of Rosenberg family history from the FBI: “The Atom Spy Case”.

 

The list is huge of Soviet agents and Soviet sympathizers used by the Soviets to undermine the government of the USA. Here is a list of names I was going to tackle but time and space precludes that idea:

 

Ted Hall

 

Morris Cohen

 

Klaus Fuchs

 

Harry Gold

 

David Greenglass

 

Allan Nunn May

 

J. Robert Oppenheimer

 

Kim Philby

 

Donald Maclean

 

Guy Burgess

 

I.F. Stone

 

Stone and Oppenheimer’s involvement with the old USSR is still a bit controversial; however in Stone’s case McCarthy-hating Leftists are still quite incredulous of a Soviet spy connection. Google all the names but below a couple of links related to Stone and Oppenheimer.

 

I.F. Stone: Soviet Spy

 

I.F. Stone Was No Spy

 

I.F. STONE

 

J. Robert Oppenheimer: A Spy? No. But a Communist Once? Yes.

 

Sacred Secrets book review 

 

In the Matter of J. Robert Oppenheimer

 

Then there is the Venona list derived from the deciphering of Soviet codes. You can see that list of Soviet agents at Conservapedia: List of Americans in the Venona papers.

 

 

JRH 8/20/14

Please Support NCCR

Putin the Friend of Christians?


Czar Vladimir Putin 2

John R. Houk
© August 9, 2017
 
I read an essay posted as a guest columnist at the RaymondIbrahim.com – Islam Translated website by Ralph H. Sidway. The theme of the essay is that there are persecuted Christians in the Muslim Middle East and that President Vladimir Putin is aligning the Russian government with the Russian Orthodox Church to act as a Russo-Christian advocate for the persecuted.
 
I have long been a proponent of exposing the tyranny heaped upon the persecuted Church in Muslim lands. I have formed a semi-journalistic relationship with Pakistani-Christian Shamim Masih living in Pakistan in order to give readers a snapshot of the persecution going on in Pakistan. I wish I had a Shamim in Egypt, Iraq, Lebanon, and Syria as well as among the Arabs that call themselves Palestinians also of the Christian faith that would also provide snapshots of local Christian treatment perspectives. Unfortunately I do not.
 
My first reaction ran something like, ‘Good for Putin in focusing global attention on the plight of Christians in Muslim lands.’ Sidway writes an effective essay upholding Putin as a friend of the Middle Eastern persecuted Church while Obama has done his best globally to proclaim that America is a friend of Islam and that Biblical Christianity is a primitive practice of backward Americans that love their guns and religion.
 
Okay, I can’t help it. Here’s an Obama jab:
 
 
 
 
So anyway I thought a bit on Putin’s Christian advocacy and Obama’s war on Christianity. Initially I was embarrassed for America. Until the infusion of Leftists transforming America away from faith, Christianity was the moral foundation of American Culture. I mean after all Obama’s 2008 election slogan was ‘Change’.
 
And then I begin to think of Putin’s past. I mean this guy was the KGB apparatchik of the dying Soviet Union. The Soviet Union’s goal from its 1917 revolution was to transform Russia into the Leninist and then Stalinist vision of Marxism which can better be described with the image of anti-Americanism that the word ‘Communism’ instilled into Americans from the Post-WWII days of the Cold War. Karl Marx’s idea of a utopia was a State-less society free of property ownership and the abolishment of all religion. Lenin initiated the plan Russian-style to force a rapid transformation. Then Stalin took the transformation concept to an even more severe path that resulted in a genocide that made Hitler’s Holocaust look like a picnic. Hitler’s genocide most notably was the extermination of 6 MILLION Jews; however there is another 6 MILLION Non-Jews killed by Hitler.
 
The Holocaust was more than a Jewish event. Records kept by the Germans prove they exterminated millions of Communists, Czechs, Greeks, Gypsies, homosexuals, Jehovah’s Witnesses, mentally and physically handicapped, Poles, resistance fighters, Russians, Serbs, Socialists, Spanish Republicans, trade unionists, Ukrainians, Yugoslavians, prisoners of war of many nations, and still others whose identity may never be recognized.(1) Their victims, according to one survivor of four different concentration camps, “were of some thirty nationalities, from Nepalese to Andorrans, and of a variety of racial and linguistic stocks ranging from Basques to Buriats and from Ladinos to Lapps”.(2) When people were not immediately exterminated, they were sent to work and/or concentration camps. There the prisoners were divided into six penal categories and given patches on their clothing for identification purposes. Ordinary criminals were assigned green; political prisoners wore red; black was worn by asocials (slackers, prostitutes, procurers, etc.); homosexuals wore pink; conscientious objectors wore purple, and the Jewish people wore yellow.(3)  (Overlooked Millions: Non-Jewish Victims of the Holocaust; by Karen Silverstrim)   
 
Now conservatively Stalin is accused of killing 7 MILLION of his own citizens in the USSR. R. J. Rummel published by the University of Hawaii utilized a definition of mass murder from the word Democide to indicate so much more than the Holocaust:
 
The murder of any person or people by a government, including genocide, politicide, and mass murder.
 
According Rummel and Democide, Joseph Stalin was responsible for 43 MILLION murdered people:
 
Stalin himself is responsible for almost 43,000,000 of these. Most of the deaths, perhaps around 39,000,000 are due to lethal forced labor in gulag and transit thereto. (HOW MANY DID COMMUNIST REGIMES MURDER? By R. J. Rummel; Hawaii.edu)
 
This Communist extermination is the legacy that Vladimir Putin inherited. Putin had a KGB spy career in the old Soviet Union and was involved with some brutal stuff to spread the Soviet National Interests abroad and to keep USSR citizens towing the line of Soviet Communism. This would include enforcing atheism the social hallmark of the Marxist transformation for Soviet Communist society. Russia’s President Yeltsin eventually promoted Putin to the head of the FSB which has become the new Russia’s version of the KGB in the old USSR.
 
So what is Putin doing in promoting the Russian Orthodox Church and advocating for Christians in the Muslim Middle East?
 
Since the end of the post-Soviet days Christianity has been exploding in Russia. Indeed American missionary work converted so many Russian citizens to Christianity that they began to challenge the numbers of the traditional Russian Orthodox Church. The Russian Orthodox Church has always considered itself as the State Church of Russia. In Czarist Russian days this was the case. Of course Communist Russia’s anti-religion stance disenfranchised the Russian Orthodox Church; however the Soviet government basically ran the Russian Patriarchate as a government fiefdom as a Marxist propaganda tool. The collapse of the Soviet Union brought a new opportunity for Orthodox Church to once again to be the enfranchised Church of Russia. That has not happened as of 2013; however the Putin-Medvedev team has mysteriously been promoting the connection between Mother Russia and the Russian Orthodox Church. This seems to me that Orthodox enfranchisement is around the corner.
 
I expect a Russian government and Russian Orthodox persecution of Russian Evangelical Christians to occur once a State Church is enfranchised. Persecution would be inevitable of the Protestant Evangelicals (which are largely Charismatic) under Russian Orthodox enfranchisement. So again, why would an old Soviet Communist Putin snuggle up to the Russian Orthodox Church?
 
Here is the reason. Vladimir Putin wants to make Russia a Super Power like in the days of the old USSR. Soviet-Communist ideology is no longer the paradigm used to unite a people to be loyal to the State. Putin intends to use the Russian Orthodox Church to not only give Russians a patriotic nationalism to unite behind, but also to reach out beyond the current Russian borders to Christians that consider themselves Eastern Rite Christians. This is the case even though most of the Eastern Rite Christians that are in Muslim lands are not necessarily Eastern Orthodox like the Russian Church. Many of the Eastern Rite Churches under Muslim domination that have an ancient history were under the Eastern Orthodox domination of the Greek Church that was the State Church of the Byzantine Empire conquered by the Ottoman Turks ultimately in 1453. In 1453 Ottoman Empire conquered the last remnant of the Byzantines at the slaughter of the sack of Constantinople. The Ottoman’s Islamized Constantinople killing priests and nuns and desecrating Churches especially the oldest Christian edifice of its day the Hagia Sofia (Turkish government Islamization) the seat of the Patriarch of the Greek Orthodox Church considered second in primacy to the Pope of Rome (although Eastern Rite Churches had long broke off their Patriarchate relationship with the Latin Church headed by the Pope).
 
Muslim Apologists use the differences that existed between the Greek Orthodox Church and other Eastern Churches as an excuse of liberation rather than forced conquest. There may have been some pockets of truth to the Muslim Apologist assertions; nevertheless after the so-called liberation of Eastern Rite Churches from the Greek Orthodox of the Byzantine Empire, brutal Islamization began [See Also HERE] so that the majority Christian population slowly converted to Islam and Arabic speaking rather than live under dhimmi repression.
 
Vladimir Putin’s interest in Eastern Rite Christianity of the Middle East is certainly more political than appearing as the Defender of the Faith. The greatest example is the Syrian civil war thatVladimir Putin - Defender of the Faith essentially pits the Sunni majority against the al-Assad Shia Alawite minority regime. Al-Assad has been a protector of Syria’s Christian minority against Radical Islam which apparently dominates the Sunni Muslim rebels. Putin is invested in Iran militarily and economically and undoubted because of oil. Iran is the parent to its client state the al-Assad government of Syria.
 
If Putin successfully places himself as the Defender of the Faith to his Russian people then the Russian Orthodox Church will be the instrument that unites Russia [See Also HERE] under the rule of Putin.
 
And so Putin’s image on the face of it appears to outshine Obama’s in being vocal against Christian persecution perpetrated by Muslims in Islamic nations. Putin has a political agenda that includes the age old practice of expanding Russia’s borders and influence while uniting Russians via the Russian Orthodox Church projecting a patriotic nationalism of Mother Russia with Christ on his side.
 
At the same time Obama is increasingly demonizing Biblical Morality and producing the illusion of a Living Constitution to install a Socialistic transformation based on Leftist Moral Relativism, Egalitarian Social Justice and Secular Humanism. Deleting the Christian influence from American Society will only succeed in making America into a corrupt culture in which all right and wrong will be measured by what the State proclaims to be good. The reality of such a Leftist proclamation will result in America ceasing to be good. After America ceases to be good we will no longer be a homogenous unified nation. Rather America will collapse into political fiefdoms of Multicultural Diversity opening the USA to become the Fractured States of America.
 
JRH 8/9/13

Please Support NCCR