Randy – Page 140 – Be Brilliant

https://randythym.com/about-bebrilliant/

There Are No Chosen People, Religions Or Governments On The Planet

Published on September 26, 2015

Created on Tuesday, 12 August 2014 21:11

There are NO chosen people on the planet.

There are NO human beings more special than any other human being on the planet.

There is NO one true religion compared to all religions on the planet.

There is NO "one true church", that the "one true God", of the "Chosen People", is head of on the planet.

The reason the average world citizen is fearful, angry, and would just as soon rid themselves of their leaders is that their leaders have forgotten, or never knew, they weren't any more special than the people they are supposed to serve. Lutherans are not better than Catholics and South American Catholics aren't better Catholics than their North American counterparts. Presbyterians are not better than Baptists and Southern Baptists are no better than Northern Baptists and so on and so on and so on.

Exclusivism and just how to perpetuate that "specialness" is a hallmark mindset and goal of most religious faiths and "secret societies" like the Freemasons, Skull & Bones and others. It is a mind virus that seems to be rearing its rather ugly head again. One way, one belief, easily defined rights and wrongs, one law (i.e. one common mind virus) will provide all the comfort and security we need.

When fundamentalists who are infected with Exclusivism speak, the goal is to spread the virus and get others to agree and support it's propagation. Once you are in, everyone not in is out, and the virus then endeavors to become immune from attack through bluster, fear, shame and guilt.

Perpetuating more harm than good is what Exclusivists do best.

Religious organizations seldom complete the tasks they set out for themselves to do. To succeed is to render oneself obsolete and the goal is always to perpetuate the religion, organization, "specialness" and "chosen" status of the group, not end it. This is why no matter how wrong the "chosen" leaders are in fact, they can still explain it all quite well as a "misunderstanding" or "spiritually discerned," and keep the cash flowing in.

So how does Exclusivism work? What must happen for it to be successful?

First of all, it must do two things:

1. It must ensure it can take up a long term residence in the host (Membership or maybe Meme-bership). A meme is an idea that is passed on from one human generation to another. It's the cultural equivalent of a gene, the basic element of biological inheritance. The term was coined in 1976 by Richard Dawkins in his book The Selfish Gene.

2. It must bring about the proper conditions for spreading itself.

Once the above has been achieved the following happens:

1. Promise reward for the effort i.e. position, power, "inside knowledge" and (here's that word again) "specialness". It's better if the reward is "someday." In government, just pay them way too much for way too little.

2. Threaten punishment for failure to grow or pay, pray, stay and obey. This can take place almost any time now and/or in the future.

3. Convince them they are the "chosen", "exclusive" and "special people". Teach them that all others are false and the right way just happens to be where they are. Define the separation of church and state by saying, "It's a bridge and our God wants us to rule the world in his name".

4. Disable their ability to challenge or disbelieve the information given. Lower their immunity. Faith is superior to reason. "The wisdom of man is foolishness with God." In government, just have a folder on with enough info on their private lives to keep them in line.

5. Establish a library of "true literature" and "correct answers" for the faithful and discourage reading outside of this one true source, usually provided by the Chief Virus and his team of pathogens.

Once the parasite has been injected into the host it will need to propagate itself or the virus will die, so Exclusivists do the following:

1. Emotionally, spiritually, psychologically, or literally kill all immune persons. If you can't infect them, eliminate them. Religions just marginalize or disfellowship these types, but governments actually kill them.

2. Intimidate and discriminate against those you can't kill. Isolate them because such people, if not held in isolation, can pass on immunity and resistance to the virus. In religion, this is being disfellowshipped, demoted, censored, or made to bring the watermelon to the picnic. In government, rendition them extraordinarily, hide them away and waterboard them for the appropriate recantation.

3. Encourage true believers to breed faster than false ones. Evangelism is a great tool for this. Or have the Pope send mom a picture of himself for faithfully bringing a large number of small Catholics into the world. In government just ‘spread democracy’ no matter how restrictive it is.

4. Censor incoming information and remember to repeat "the wisdom of man is foolishness with God" often, along with a lot of other scriptures that promote blind obedience. In government, just control the media and set your sites on the Internet.

5. Be prepared to give out disinformation and spread lies about your rivals. Demonize them. And remember, the bigger the lies, the louder you shout them and the more seriously concerned you appear for the welfare of the members, the more successful you will be.

Exclusivism is an evil mindset promoting Us vs. Them, Me vs. You, Chosen vs. Unchosen, Christian vs. Pagan, True vs. False as defined by one government, organization or person over another and it is NEVER going to turn outright.

Usually, the only place where you will find confirmation that a particular group, government, church, guru, or other grand poobah is "more chosen" than all others is in their own literature, historic records or head.

There are NO chosen, special, more of God, people, nations or religions on this planet. As we each operate from our own level of consciousness we will all demonstrate unique talents and capabilities. The higher your level of consciousness the more creative, compassionate and loving, i.e. enlightened, your thoughts and actions will be. Remember that in the end, we are all a part of the same One thing, Prime Creator, All That Is. We're all made of stardust and we all have a limited time to behold the wonders of this universe.

Use that time wisely.

Don't let someone's misguided idea of "chosenness" either in religion, government or anywhere else, ruin your experience on this planet by disabling your ability to choose your own path and to think for yourself.

Edited from: OpEdNews.com

I am closing this article with one of my favorite excerpts from the book, that I have read and given to friends and strangers the most in my life –Conversations With God, Book 1 by Neale Donald Walsch

Everything your heart experiences about God tells you that God is good. Everything your teachers teach you about God tells you God is bad. Your heart tells you God is to be loved without fear. Your teachers tell you God is to be feared, for He is a vengeful God. You are to live in fear of God’s wrath, they say. You are to tremble in His presence.

Your whole life through you are to fear the judgment of the Lord. For the Lord is “just,” you are told. And God knows, you will be in trouble when you confront the terrible justice of the Lord. You are, therefore, to be “obedient” to God’s commands. Or else.

Above all, you are not to ask such logical questions as, “if God wanted strict obedience to His Laws, why did He create the possibility of those Laws being violated?” Ah, your teachers tell you—because God wanted you to have “free choice.” Yet what kind of choice is free when to choose one thing over the other brings condemnation? How is “free will” free when it is not your will, but someone else’s, which must be done? Those who teach you this would make a hypocrite of God.

You are told that God is forgiveness, and compassion—yet if you do not ask for this forgiveness in the “right way,” if you do not “come to God properly”, your plea will not be heard, your cry will go unheeded. Even this would not be so bad if there were only one proper way, but there are as many “proper ways” being taught as there are teachers to teach them. Most of you, therefore, spend the bulk of your adult life searching for the “right” way to worship, to obey, and to serve God.

The irony of all this is that I do not want your worship, I do not need your obedience, and it is not necessary for you to serve Me.

These behaviors are the behaviors historically demanded of their subjects by monarchs—usually egomaniacal, insecure, tyrannical monarchs at that. They’re not Godly demands in any sense—and it seems remarkable that the world hasn’t by now concluded that the demands are counterfeit, having nothing to do with the needs or desires of Deity.

Deity has no needs. All That Is is exactly that: All That Is. It therefore wants, or lacks, nothing — by definition. If you choose to believe in a God who somehow needs something—and has such hurt feelings if He doesn’t get it, that He punishes those from whom He expected to receive it—then you choose to believe in a God much smaller than I. You truly are Children of a Lesser God.

No, my children, please let Me assure you again, through this writing, that I am without needs. I require nothing.

Hold to your values so long as you experience that they serve you. Yet look to see whether the values you serve, with your thoughts, words, and actions, bring to the space of your experience the highest and best idea you ever had about you. Examine your values one by one. Hold them up to the light of public scrutiny. If you can tell the world who you are and what you believe without breaking stride or hesitating, you are happy with yourself.

The Rise Of Isis Is Part Of The West’s Pipeline Geopolitics

Published on September 26, 2015

Created on Saturday, 16 August 2014 19:22

Following the bulk of western reporting on the Iraq crisis, you'd think the self-styled 'Islamic State of Iraq and Syria' (Isis) popped out of nowhere, took the west completely by surprise, and is now rampaging across the Middle East like some random weather event.

The reality is far more complex and less palatable. The meteoric rise of Isis is a predictable consequence of a longstanding US-led geostrategy in the Middle East that has seen tyrants and terrorists as tools to expedite access to regional oil and gas resources.

Since the second world war, as British historian Mark Curtis documented extensively in his seminal study, The Ambiguities of Power, US and UK goals in the Middle East have focused on oil. As a secret British document from 1958 explained:

"The major British and other western interests in the Persian Gulf [are] (a) to ensure free access for Britain and other Western countries to oil produced in States bordering the Gulf; (b) to ensure the continued availability of that oil on favourable terms and for surplus revenues of Kuwait; (c) to bar the spread of Communism and pseudo-Communism in the area and subsequently to defend the area against the brand of Arab nationalism."

While Saddam Hussein was fighting Iran abroad, not to mention gassing Kurds and Shi'ites at home using the vast quantities of chemical and biological weapons sold to him by the US, Britain, France, Germany, among others, he was our man: In 1988, when Saddam's forces were strafing Halabja with mustard gas and nerve toxins, massacring 5,000 civilians, US imports of Iraqi oil had rocketed to 126 million barrels – essentially one out of every four barrels of Iraqi oil exports. This was a special relationship. US oil companies received a discount of $1 per barrel below prices charged to European companies.

That special relationship only changed when Saddam's anti-Americanism got the better of him. At an Arab summit in February 1990, the Ba'athist leader declared: "If the Gulf people and the rest of the Arabs along with them fail to take heed, the Arab Gulf region will be ruled by American will." He complained that the US would dictate the production, distribution and price of oil, "all on the basis of a special outlook which has to do solely with US interests and in which no consideration is given to the interests of others."

So perhaps western officials thought they were being clever when they encouraged Kuwait to conduct what Henry Schuler – then head of the energy security programme at Washington DC's Center for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS) – described as "economic warfare" against Iraq.

Citing the king of Jordan among other high-level sources, the late investigative journalist Michael Emery reported at the time in Village Voice that Kuwait:

"… had enthusiastically participated in a behind-the-scenes economic campaign inspired by western intelligence agencies against Iraqi interests. The Kuwaities even went so far as to dump oil for less than the agreed upon OPEC price… which undercut the oil revenues essential to cash hungry Baghdad. The evidence shows that President George Bush, British prime minister Margaret Thatcher, Egyptian president Hosni Mubarak, and other Arab leaders secretly cooperated on a number of occasions, beginning August 1988, to deny Saddam Hussein the economic help he demanded for the reconstruction of his nation."

These covert efforts to quietly weaken Iraq's regional clout ended up provoking Saddam into invading Kuwait, prompting the 1991 Gulf War to re-assert OPEC's oil hegemony under western tutelage.

In the runup to the 2003 invasion, oil was again center stage. While the plans to invade, capture and revitalise Iraq's flagging oil industry with a view to open it up to foreign investors were explored meticulously by the Pentagon, US State Department and UK Foreign Office – there was little or no planning for humanitarian or social reconstruction.

Opening up Iraq's huge oil reserves would avert what one British diplomat at the Coalition Provisional Authority characterised as a potential "world shortage" of oil supply, stabilising global prices, and thereby holding off an energy crunch anticipated in 2001 by a study group commissioned by vice president Dick Cheney.

Simultaneously, influential neoconservative US officials saw an opportunity here to pursue hair-brained ambitions to re-engineer the region through the de facto ethno-sectarian partition of Iraq into three autonomous cantons: a vision that could not be achieved without considerable covert violence.

According to US private intelligence firm Stratfor, Cheney and deputy defense secretary Paul Wolfowitz co-authored the scheme, under which the central and largest part of Iraq populated mostly by Sunnis (including Baghdad) would join with Jordan; the Kurdish region of northern and northwestern Iraq, including Mosul and the vast Kirkuk oilfields, would become its own autonomous state; and the Shi'a region in southwestern Iraq, including Basra, would make up the third canton, or would join with Kuwait.

Stratfor warned presciently that: "The new government's attempts to establish control over all of Iraq may well lead to a civil war between Sunni, Shia and Kurdish ethnic groups… The fiercest fighting could be expected for control over the oil facilities" – exactly the scenario unfolding now. Fracturing the country along sectarian lines, however, "may give Washington several strategic advantages":

"After eliminating Iraq as a sovereign state, there would be no fear that one day an anti-American government would come to power in Baghdad, as the capital would be in Amman [Jordan]. Current and potential US geopolitical foes Iran, Saudi Arabia and Syria would be isolated from each other, with big chunks of land between them under control of the pro-US forces.

Equally important, Washington would be able to justify its long-term and heavy military presence in the region as necessary for the defense of a young new state asking for US protection – and to secure the stability of oil markets and supplies. That in turn would help the United States gain direct control of Iraqi oil and replace Saudi oil in case of conflict with Riyadh."

The Stratfor report noted that the plan was only one among several under consideration at the time, and not yet finalised.

In this context, contradictory US policies appear to make sense. In early 2005, Pakistani defence sources revealed that the Pentagon had "resolved to arm small militias backed by US troops and entrenched in the population," consisting of "former members of the Ba'ath Party" – linked up with al-Qaeda insurgents – to "head off" the threat of a "Shi'ite clergy-driven religious movement." Almost simultaneously, the Pentagon began preparing its 'Salvador option' to sponsor Shi'ite death squads to "target Sunni insurgents and their sympathisers."

The strategic thinking behind arming both sides was alluded to by one US Joint Special Operations University report which said: "US elite forces in Iraq turned to fostering infighting among their Iraqi adversaries on the tactical and operational level." This included disseminating and propagating al-Qaeda jihadi activities by "US psychological warfare (PSYOP) specialists" to fuel "factional fighting" and "to set insurgents battling insurgents."

This short-sighted divide-and-rule strategy went nowhere within Iraq beyond fueling sectarianism, but has played out across the region. As I previously wrote in the Guardian and elsewhere, both the Bush and Obama administration have – through Saudi Arabia, Qatar and other Gulf states – fostered extremist Sunni groups affiliated to al-Qaida across the Middle East to counter Iranian influence.

That has included extensive financing of jihadist groups in Syria to the tune of up to a billion dollars – a policy that began as early as 2009, and continued in the context of pipeline geopolitics. The US and UK had apparently decided that a proposed Iran-Iraq-Syria pipeline would undermine the interests of their favoured friends – Saudi Arabia, Qatar, Turkey and Jordan.

What is playing out now seems startlingly close to scenarios described in 2008 by a US Army-funded RAND Corp report on how to win 'the long war':

"The geographic area of proven oil reserves coincides with the power base of much of the Salafi-jihadist network…. For the foreseeable future, world oil production growth and total output will be dominated by Persian Gulf resources."

One strategy to protect US access to Gulf oil explored by the report was "Divide and Rule", which would involve "exploiting fault lines between the various Salafi-jihadist groups to turn them against each other and dissipate their energy on internal conflicts." The US could also concentrate "on shoring up the traditional Sunni regimes in Saudi Arabia, Egypt, and Pakistan as a way of containing Iranian power and influence in the Middle East and Persian Gulf."

This might end up empowering Islamist terrorists, the report recognised – but that could be a good thing as it "may actually reduce the al-Qaida threat to US interests in the short term" (never mind the long term) as they would target "Iranian interests throughout the Middle East and Persian Gulf while simultaneously cutting back on anti-American and anti-Western operations."

The potential results were anticipated. In February, director of the US Defense Intelligence Agency (DIA) Lt Gen Michael T Flynn testified in Congress that ISIS "probably will attempt to take territory in Iraq and Syria to exhibit its strength in 2014."

Now Iraqis are paying the price yet again for our ill-conceived imperial hubris, and the US is desperately considering an alliance with arch-enemy Iran to stave off Isis, whose bloody rampage across Iraq threatens to disrupt Iraqi oil production. The conflict has already triggered price spikes that could worsen if Isis expands its hold of key cities.

A new intervention to keep the lid on oil prices is clearly tempting for the US and UK governments, except this would merely strike at the head of the hydra – the symptom – not the root cause. And so far, self-serving wars for oil are precisely what got us here. The rise of Isis – a movement so ruthless even their parent network al-Qaeda disowned them – is blowback from the same brand of oil-addicted US-UK covert operations we have run for decades.

If we really wanted to shut down Isis and its ilk for good, we could start by dismantling and disentangling ourselves from the geopolitical and financial infrastructure of oil hegemony that incubates terror. In the current context, bombs promise nothing more than the road to escalation.

In Einstein's words: "The definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results."

Source: stopwar.org.uk

ISIS: Made in the USA

Published on September 26, 2015

Created on Saturday, 16 August 2014 19:27

The Islamic State in Iraq and Syria (ISIS) is a creation of the United States and its Persian Gulf allies, namely Saudi Arabia, Qatar, and recently added to the list, Kuwait. The Daily Beast in an article titled, “America’s Allies Are Funding ISIS,” states:

The Islamic State of Iraq and Syria (ISIS), now threatening Baghdad, was funded for years by wealthy donors in Kuwait, Qatar, and Saudi Arabia, three U.S. allies that have dual agendas in the war on terror.

Despite the candor of the opening sentence, the article would unravel into a myriad of lies laid to obfuscate America’s role in the creation of ISIS. The article would claim:

The extremist group that is threatening the existence of the Iraqi state was built and grown for years with the help of elite donors from American supposed allies in the Persian Gulf region. There, the threat of Iran, Assad, and the Sunni-Shiite sectarian war trumps the U.S. goal of stability and moderation in the region.

However, the US goal in the region was never “stability” and surely not “moderation.” As early as 2007, sources within the Pentagon and across the US intelligence community revealed a conspiracy to drown the Middle East in sectarian war, and to do so by arming and funding extremist groups including the Muslim Brotherhood and Al Qaeda itself. Published in 2007 – a full 4 years before the 2011 “Arab Spring” would begin – Pulitzer Prize-winning journalist Seymour Hersh’s New Yorker article titled, “”The Redirection: Is the Administration’s new policy benefiting our enemies in the war on terrorism?” stated specifically (emphasis added):

To undermine Iran, which is predominantly Shiite, the Bush Administration has decided, in effect, to reconfigure its priorities in the Middle East. In Lebanon, the Administration has coöperated with Saudi Arabia’s government, which is Sunni, in clandestine operations that are intended to weaken Hezbollah, the Shiite organization that is backed by Iran. The U.S. has also taken part in clandestine operations aimed at Iran and its ally Syria. A by-product of these activities has been the bolstering of Sunni extremist groups that espouse a militant vision of Islam and are hostile to America and sympathetic to Al Qaeda.

The 9 page, extensive report has since been vindicated many times over with revelations of US, NATO, and Persian Gulf complicity in raising armies of extremists within Libya and along Syria’s borders. ISIS itself, which is claimed to occupy a region stretching from northeastern Syria and across northern and western Iraq, has operated all along Turkey’s border with Syria, “coincidentally” where the US CIA has conducted years of “monitoring” and arming of “moderate” groups.

In fact, the US admits it has armed, funded, and equipped “moderates” to the tune of hundreds of millions of dollars. In a March 2013 Telegraph article titled, “US and Europe in ‘major airlift of arms to Syrian rebels through Zagreb’,” it was reported that a single program included 3,000 tons of weapons sent in 75 planeloads paid for by Saudi Arabia at the bidding of the United States. The New York Times in its article, “Arms Airlift to Syria Rebels Expands, With C.I.A. Aid,” admits that the CIA assisted Arab governments and Turkey with military aid to terrorists fighting in Syria constituting hundreds of airlifts landing in both Jordan and Turkey.

The vast scale of US, NATO, and Arab aid to terrorists fighting in Syria leaves no doubt that the conspiracy described by Hersh in 2007 was carried out in earnest, and that the reason Al Qaeda groups such as Al Nusra and ISIS displaced so-called “moderates,” was because such “moderates” never existed in any significant manner to begin with. While articles like the Daily Beast’s “America’s Allies Are Funding ISIS” now try to portray a divide between US and Persian Gulf foreign policy, from Hersh’s 2007 article and all throughout the past 3 years in Libya and Syria, the goal of raising an army in the name of Al Qaeda has been clearly shared and demonstrably pursued by both the US and its regional partners.

The plan, from the beginning, was to raise an extremist expeditionary force to trigger a regional sectarian bloodbath – a bloodbath now raging across multiple borders and set to expand further if decisive action is not taken.

Iran Must Avoid America’s “Touch of Death” and Sectarian War at All Costs

Despite an open conspiracy to drown the region in sectarian strife, the US now poses as a stakeholder in Iraq’s stability. Having armed, funded, and assisted ISIS into existence and into northern Iraq itself, the idea of America “intervening” to stop ISIS is comparable to an arsonist extinguishing his fire with more gasoline. Reviled across the region, any government – be it in Baghdad, Tehran, or Damascus – that allies itself with the US will be immediately tainted in the minds of forces forming along both sides of this artificially created but growing sectarian divide. Iran’s mere consideration of joint-operations with the US can strategically hobble any meaningful attempts on the ground to stop ISIS from establishing itself in Iraq and using Iraqi territory to launch attacks against both Tehran and Damascus.

Any Iranian assistance to Iraq should be given only under the condition that the US not intervene in any manner. Iran’s main concern should be portraying the true foreign-funded nature of ISIS, while uniting genuine Sunni and Shia’a groups together to purge what is a foreign invasion of Iraqi territory. Iran must also begin allaying fears among Iraq’s Sunni population that Tehran may try to use the current crisis to gain further influence over Baghdad.

While the US downplays the sectarian aspects of ISIS’ invasion of Iraq before global audiences, its propaganda machine across the Middle East, assisted by Doha and Riyadh, is stoking sectarian tensions. ISIS has committed itself to a campaign of over-the-top sectarian vitriol and atrocities solely designed to trigger a wider Sunni-Shia’a conflict. That the US created ISIS and it is now in Iraq attempting to stoke a greater bloodbath with its already abhorrent invasion, is precisely why Tehran and Baghdad should take a cue from Damascus, and disassociate itself from the West, dealing with ISIS themselves.

Source: globalresearch.ca

Why Zionism-Nazism Comparisons Are Legitimate

Published on September 26, 2015

Created on Tuesday, 12 August 2014 21:17

I strongly believe that Jews around the world, including those in Israel, ought to be constantly reminded of the evil crimes committed in Palestine under their collective name, as well as understand the close ideological similarity between Nazism and Zionism.

This, I believe, is a legitimate tool to get Jews, especially those who still value justice and honesty, to reconsider their identification and infatuation with this evil entity and its equally nefarious ideology and actions.

Jews all around the world simply can’t love Israel and support its wanton criminality against the Palestinian people, while at the same time continuing to lecture the world about the evils of Nazism. Moral consistency is absolutely paramount.

Supporting oppression and racism is as bad as practicing oppression and racism. Indeed, oppression such as occupation can’t persist for a long time without the material and moral support and backing by people who may often look nice and speak softly. Many of the supporters of Apartheid in South Africa and Nazism in Germany also looked very nice and spoke softly, not knowing (or knowing) that they were tacitly backing evil, racist criminals committing ghastly crimes against humanity.

Zionism (the central embodiment of which is the apartheid Israeli state) is evil, because of its racist evil ideology and criminal actions and behavior in Palestine.

Zionism has declared all Jews a distinct ethnicity, just as the Nazis had declared all Germans a distinct ethnicity.

Both Zionism and Nazism strove to build a ‘state’ that would be ‘redeemed’ through violent purification (in the case of Nazi Germany) and ‘an Iron wall’ (in the case of Zionist Israel).

In both instances, ethnic cleansing was the main tool used to obliterate the ‘inferiors,’ the ‘water carriers and wood hewers’ in order to create ‘German-only’ settlements in Europe and ‘Jewish-only’ settlements in Palestine.

In all honesty, there are no fundamental differences between Jewish national socialism (Zionism) and German national socialism (Nazism). The Nazis preached the ‘Master Race’ to justify Nazism while Zionists adopted the ancient myth of the ‘Chosen People’ to justify Zionism.

Moreover, we can’t really ignore the absolute similarity between the Zionist ethnic conquest of Palestine and the implanting therein of ‘Jewish settlers’ at the expense of the native Palestinian Muslims and Christians, and the Nazi drive for ‘Lebensraum’ in Poland and the importation of ‘Aryans’ at the expense of the indigenous population.

Yes, there in Europe, the Nazis sought to steal the Sudetenland and here in Palestine, the Zionists are stealing the West Bank. The arguments are the same, the lies are the same and the means are nearly identical.

We need to highlight these similarities and the ‘common ground’ between Zionism and Nazism, irrespective of how many people will be upset by these comparisons. The truth is always a paramount value in itself.

There is no doubt that the Third Reich committed monstrous crimes against helpless Jews far greater than those committed by Israel against the equally helpless Palestinians. Yes, we all know about Auschwitz-Birkenau, Bergen Belsen, Treblinka, and the other detention camps where many Jews, mainly non-Zionist and anti-Zionist Jews, perished at the hands of the Nazi exterminators.

However, let us ask ourselves the following question: Were the Nazis ‘Nazi’ only because they created and used gas chambers to incinerate their Jewish and non-Jewish victims? Would the Nazis have been less evil and therefore ‘less Nazi’ if they had annihilated their victims by way of bullets instead of ovens, or by starving them to death as Israel has been doing to the Palestinians? Besides, if Jews had the right to call the “Exodus Ship” a floating Auschwitz, why is it wrong for the Palestinians to describe as “Nazi” the ongoing extirpation of an entire people from their ancestral homeland? Do Jew have an exclusive right to call their critics and enemies “Nazi” while others, e.g. the Palestinians, don’t have a similar right to call Israeli crimes and criminals “Nazi”?

Besides, should we refrain from using the Nazi epithets to describe the racist criminals of our time, wherever they happen to be and regardless of what religion they adhere to, until and unless they start using gas chambers to exterminate their victims?

More to the point, by what logic are Israel and its supporters using the Second World War (a cruel war in which a few million Jews, as well as nearly 50 million non-Jews, perished), as a justification and cover-up to dispossess, dehumanize and ethnically cleanse the indigenous Palestinian people?

Well, Israel could theoretically annihilate most Palestinians with nuclear, chemical, or biological weapons, or simply through a sustained campaign of massive artillery bombardment and aerial bombing. Would such an act make Israelis less ‘Nazi’?

I want to ask those who might rave and rant against me the following question: At what point should we start calling Israel ‘Nazi’? When the number of its victims reaches one million? Two million? Or perhaps six million? Or when the Zionists start introducing Zyklon B to kill us? Or when 90% of Palestinians are packed into detention camps, surrounded by 8-meter high concrete walls fitted with watchtowers that are manned by trigger-happy Zionist Gestapo?

I know some Zionist apologists will be prompted, almost instinctively, to argue that, unlike Israel, the Third Reich had devised a plan, a final solution, to exterminate all Jews in Europe and the world.

Well, regardless of the historical authenticity of such a claim, I would challenge the Zionists and their supporters and apologists to prove that Israel doesn’t harbor a final solution for the Palestinians.

Isn’t the brutal extirpation of virtually an entire people from their historical motherland tantamount to a kind of final solution? Isn’t ethnic cleansing a form of a final solution? How about the continuing starvation, encirclement, and hounding of the Palestinians? Besides, is there a fundamental difference between attempting to destroy an entire people pursuant to a plan and attempting to destroy them without a plan? Wouldn’t the ultimate outcome be the same?

Don’t invoke the calumny of terror. We know and you know and the whole world knows that words like ‘terror,’ ‘terrorists,’ ‘axis of evil’ and ‘enemies of freedom’ are all ideological terms used tendentiously by the powerful and the arrogant, such as Israel and the United States, to justify their own true terror against the weak and the oppressed. Even Satan himself would call his enemies terrorists.

In the final analysis, ‘terror’ is the poor man’s war against the powerful and the arrogant, and ‘war’ is the strong man’s terror against the weak and the oppressed.

Yes, the scope of the Nazi Holocaust is greater than that of the criminal Zionist occupation of Palestine. But the mentality, the psychology, the malice, the hatefulness, and especially the sheer evil intent in both cases are certainly not that far apart from each other.

There is no doubt in my mind that Israel would have exterminated, or at least tried to exterminate, the Palestinian people a long time ago had the ‘objective circumstances’ been available. Needless to say ‘objective circumstances’ here could mean a huge international event (for example, a nuclear war, a global national disaster, or a gigantic event of some sort) that would divert or shift international attention from such a genocidal feat.

It is true that Israel would prefer to ‘solve the problem’ without a campaign of mass murder and mass terror, like bullying and terrorizing the Palestinians, or the vast majority of them, into leaving their ancestral homeland.

However, there is no doubt that Israel would contemplate resorting to the ‘worst scenario’ in case the Palestinians clung to their homeland and remained steadfast in their homes and towns and villages.

In 2001, a few days after the 9/11 events in the US, then Israeli Defense Minister Benjamin Ben Eliezer bragged about how the international media’s preoccupation with events in the US enabled Israel to kill more Palestinians in the West Bank without being censured by the international community.

Similarly, the former Israeli Prime Minister, Benjamin Netanyahu, told students at Bar Ilan University in 1989 that “Israel should have exploited the repression of the demonstration in China (the Tiananmen Square events) where world attention was focused on that country, to carry out mass expulsion among the Arabs of the territories.”

Even today, Israeli leaders say brazenly that they wish to wake up to see all of us dead.

Indeed, the Palestinian national demise has always been and continues to be Zionism’s ultimate goal, this is why Zionism doesn’t really recognize our very existence as a people, and when it does or is forced to do so under the pressure of reality, it insists that Palestine is Jordan and that Amman, not Jerusalem, is the capital of Palestine.

In addition, there is no doubt that the daily acts of murder, terror, humiliation, and savagery which ordinary Palestinians are routinely subjected to at the hands of trigger-happy Israeli soldiers manning checkpoints and roadblocks throughout the occupied territories are comparable in many aspects to the same acts of humiliation and terror Jews and non-Jews had to endure in Nazi-occupied Europe.

The Nazis imprinted serial numbers on the forearms of Jewish internees, and the Israelis have done the same to the Palestinians.

The Nazis treated Jews as mere numbers rather than human beings, and the Israelis have done the same with the Palestinians.

The Gestapo savaged, brutalized, and starved Jews in the Warsaw Ghetto to break their collective will, and Israel has been doing the same to Palestinians in Gaza and the West Bank.

The Nazis practiced all kinds of sadistic behavior with Jews, like for example, forcing Jewish musicians to play music for Gestapo and Wehrmacht soldiers, and the Israelis have done the same in the West Bank at the checkpoints.

I don’t know if Jews were forced to drink German soldiers’ urine as Israeli border policemen on several occasions have forced their Palestinian victims to do.

During the years of the two Intifadas (uprisings), I traveled throughout the West Bank, passing through Israeli army checkpoints and roadblocks. There, I saw the extent to which Israeli soldiers, many of them grandchildren of Holocaust survivors, behave bestially towards helpless Palestinians.

I saw soldiers murder innocent people on the spot for no genuine reason. I saw soldiers force young Palestinians to strip naked and stand for hours under heavy rain. I saw soldiers relaxed and enjoying the pain and suffering inflicted on thousands of Palestinians, passengers, and motorists whose only ‘fault’ was that of being Palestinian and weak.

I saw face to face the obscene sadistic acts practiced by Jews against their helpless victims. This behavior is not played out in isolated incidents. This is the norm, not the exception.

The Nazi-like occupation of Palestine by Israel is not the act of a few Israeli Jews. It is not even the act of the military establishment alone. It is the collective act of a morally desensitized society that has nearly lost its humanity and succumbed to a collective psychosis that is not unlike the moral blindness that struck the German people more than sixty years ago.

Today, most Jews are more or less either enthusiastically supportive or silent and apathetic about the atrocities being perpetrated in their name in Gaza, the West Bank and Lebanon.

In fact, I would exaggerate little by saying that many, probably a majority, of Israeli Jews are even enjoying and benefiting from the occupation.

In some ways, Palestinians have fared far worse than Hitler’s victims; for the Palestinian tragedy is ongoing and Palestinians, unlike Jews, who still receive compensation for losses dating back sixty years, receive no reparations for lost personal property, not even an acknowledgment from their tormenters of any responsibility for their dispossession.

Sixty years ago Zionists demolished 438 Palestinian villages and poisoned or destroyed wells to ensure that their rightful owners would not return. Today, Zionists keep on behaving more or less along the same traditions, demolishing homes, destroying farms, and narrowing people’s horizons, all with the goal of making them emigrate.

Today in every junior high school in America, students read Anne Frank, while in every high school Elie Wiesel’s ‘Night’ is requisite reading. This is the man who says brazenly that he readily identifies with Israeli crimes and that he couldn’t bring himself to say bad things about Israel.

The victims of the first Kristallnacht enjoy the world’s approbation and sympathy, while at the same time having succeeded in demonizing an entire people, for whom Kristallnacht still remains a night without end.

But, unlike the German national socialists, Jewish national socialists are falsifying history and reality to justify their crimes against humanity. The Holocaust narrative, which has been elevated to the status of a religion, allows Yad Vashem, the Holocaust museum in Jerusalem, to invoke the mantra ‘Never Again’ while it sits on Arab lands stolen from Ein Karem and overlooking the unmarked graves of Palestinians massacred by Judeo-Nazi terrorists at Deir Yassin.

It is sad, really sad, that most Jews are now finding themselves in the shoes of their former oppressors, knowingly and consciously.

On August 23, 1947, nearly one year before Israel’s birth, Harry Truman wrote the following to Eleanor Roosevelt, apparently in the wake of another Jewish atrocity in Palestine :

“I fear very much that the Jews are like all underdogs. When they get on the top they are just as intolerant and cruel as the people were to them when they were underneath. I regret this situation very much because my sympathy has always been on their side.”

Today, in light of Israel’s Nazi-like behavior in Palestine, it is difficult to view Truman’s prophetic words with indifference. In fact, it is a moral obligation of the first order to oppose Zionism with the same vigor and same determination the world demonstrated in the face of Nazism.

Some Jews, out of ignorance or tribal loyalty or both, insist that opposition to Zionism is anti-Semitism. Well, if oppression and racism are consistent with being Jewish, then, yes, the world will be obliged to be anti-Jewish in a certain sense. Indeed, if anti-Zionism is anti-Semitism, then anti-Semitism itself becomes a moral obligation upon all conscientious people, as Michael Neumann, Professor of Philosophy at Trent University in Ontario, Canada, so eloquently argues.

“Today, when Israel could have peace for the taking, it conducts another round of dispossession, slowly, deliberately, making Palestine unlivable for Palestinians, and livable for Jews. And the purpose here is not to attain security, as Israeli propagandists and hasbara spinners would want us to believe. The real purpose is the extinction of a people, the Palestinian people.

“And Israel has enough PR-savvy to eliminate the Palestinians with an American rather than a Hitlerian level of violence. This is a kinder, gentler (creeping) genocide that portrays the perpetrators as victims and the victims as terrorists.”

“It is amply clear that Israel is building a racial state, not a religious one. Like my parents, I have always been an atheist. I am entitled by the biology of my birth to Israeli citizenship; you, perhaps, are the most fervent believer in Judaism but are not. Palestinians are being squeezed and killed for me, not for you. They are to be forced into Jordan to perish in a civil war. So no, shooting Palestinian civilians is not like shooting Vietnamese or Chechen civilians. The Palestinians aren’t ‘collateral damage’ in a war against well-armed Communist or separatist forces. They are being shot because Israel thinks all Palestinians should vanish or die, so people with one Jewish grandparent can build subdivisions on the rubble of their homes. This is not the bloody mistake of a blundering but an emerging evil, the deliberate strategy of a state conceived in and dedicated to an increasingly vicious ethnic nationalism. It has relatively few corpses to its credit so far, but its nuclear weapons can kill perhaps 25 million people in a few hours.”

I frankly don’t believe that the Zionists are morally fit to lecture the world even on the evils of Nazism, and the reason for this lies not only in Zionism’s Nazi-like crimes against the Palestinian people and other peoples in the Middle East. It goes much further than that.

Zionism cooperated and collaborated with Nazism, not necessarily to save Jews, as the paragons of lies would claim, but rather to fulfill Zionism and Zionist statehood. And in order to expedite the evil goal, the Zionists quietly consented to the mass murder of hundreds of thousands of Jews who could have been saved and sent to other parts of the world, especially North America.

In 1949, the Israeli intelligence employed Walter Rauff, an SS officer who is believed to have been responsible for the murder of at least 100,000 people and was wanted by the Allies as a war criminal. Israel, instead of bringing him to justice it paid him for his services and helped him escape to South America. Rauff, who had devised a plan to destroy Jews in Palestine, was by no means the only Nazi criminal employed by Israel.

Yes, it is wrong to blame each and every Jew on earth for the crimes of Israel. However, Jews can make a difference if they wish to, by speaking up against Israeli criminality and racism.