Oliko Kommunismin mustassa kirjassa, jota en ole lukenut, kerrottu tämä totuus?
Diktatoorisen kommunismin takana oli juutalais-troikka, joka syyllistyi julmuuksiin.
Nyt samanlainen neo-konservatiivinen juutalais-troikka istuu Bushin hallinnossa ja on sen taustavoima kun Lähi-itää yritetään pistää usalaisen oligarkian kaavaan.
The war in Iraq was conceived by 25 neoconservative intellectuals, most of them Jewish, who are pushing President Bush to change the course of history. Two of them, journalists William Kristol and Charles Krauthammer, say it's possible. But another journalist, Thomas Friedman (not part of the group), is skeptical
1. The doctrine
WASHINGTON - At the conclusion of its second week, the war to liberate Iraq wasn't looking good. Not even in Washington. The assumption of a swift collapse of the Saddam Hussein regime had itself collapsed. The presupposition that the Iraqi dictatorship would crumble as soon as mighty America entered the country proved unfounded. The Shi'ites didn't rise up, the Sunnis fought fiercely. Iraqi guerrilla warfare found the American generals unprepared and endangered their overextended supply lines. Nevertheless, 70 percent of the American people continued to support the war; 60 percent thought victory was certain; 74 percent expressed confidence in President George W. Bush.
Washington is a small city. It's a place of human dimensions. A kind of small town that happens to run an empire. A small town of government officials and members of Congress and personnel of research institutes and journalists who pretty well all know one another. Everyone is busy intriguing against everyone else; and everyone gossips about everyone else.
In the course of the past year, a new belief has emerged in the town: the belief in war against Iraq. That ardent faith was disseminated by a small group of 25 or 30 neoconservatives, almost all of them Jewish, almost all of them intellectuals (a partial list: Richard Perle, Paul Wolfowitz, Douglas Feith, William Kristol, Eliot Abrams, Charles Krauthammer), people who are mutual friends and cultivate one another and are convinced that political ideas are a major driving force of history. They believe that the right political idea entails a fusion of morality and force, human rights and grit. The philosophical underpinnings of the Washington neoconservatives are the writings of Machiavelli, Hobbes and Edmund Burke. They also admire Winston Churchill and the policy pursued by Ronald Reagan. They tend to read reality in terms of the failure of the 1930s (Munich) versus the success of the 1980s (the fall of the Berlin Wall).
Are they wrong? Have they committed an act of folly in leading Washington to Baghdad? They don't think so. They continue to cling to their belief. They are still pretending that everything is more or less fine. That things will work out. Occasionally, though, they seem to break out in a cold sweat. This is no longer an academic exercise, one of them says, we are responsible for what is happening. The ideas we put forward are now affecting the lives of millions of people. So there are moments when you're scared. You say, Hell, we came to help, but maybe we made a mistake.
http://www.jewwatch.com/jew-occupiedgovernments-USSR-Jewish-Bolshevism-Jewish Role.html
Diktatoorisen kommunismin takana oli juutalais-troikka, joka syyllistyi julmuuksiin.
Nyt samanlainen neo-konservatiivinen juutalais-troikka istuu Bushin hallinnossa ja on sen taustavoima kun Lähi-itää yritetään pistää usalaisen oligarkian kaavaan.
The war in Iraq was conceived by 25 neoconservative intellectuals, most of them Jewish, who are pushing President Bush to change the course of history. Two of them, journalists William Kristol and Charles Krauthammer, say it's possible. But another journalist, Thomas Friedman (not part of the group), is skeptical
1. The doctrine
WASHINGTON - At the conclusion of its second week, the war to liberate Iraq wasn't looking good. Not even in Washington. The assumption of a swift collapse of the Saddam Hussein regime had itself collapsed. The presupposition that the Iraqi dictatorship would crumble as soon as mighty America entered the country proved unfounded. The Shi'ites didn't rise up, the Sunnis fought fiercely. Iraqi guerrilla warfare found the American generals unprepared and endangered their overextended supply lines. Nevertheless, 70 percent of the American people continued to support the war; 60 percent thought victory was certain; 74 percent expressed confidence in President George W. Bush.
Washington is a small city. It's a place of human dimensions. A kind of small town that happens to run an empire. A small town of government officials and members of Congress and personnel of research institutes and journalists who pretty well all know one another. Everyone is busy intriguing against everyone else; and everyone gossips about everyone else.
In the course of the past year, a new belief has emerged in the town: the belief in war against Iraq. That ardent faith was disseminated by a small group of 25 or 30 neoconservatives, almost all of them Jewish, almost all of them intellectuals (a partial list: Richard Perle, Paul Wolfowitz, Douglas Feith, William Kristol, Eliot Abrams, Charles Krauthammer), people who are mutual friends and cultivate one another and are convinced that political ideas are a major driving force of history. They believe that the right political idea entails a fusion of morality and force, human rights and grit. The philosophical underpinnings of the Washington neoconservatives are the writings of Machiavelli, Hobbes and Edmund Burke. They also admire Winston Churchill and the policy pursued by Ronald Reagan. They tend to read reality in terms of the failure of the 1930s (Munich) versus the success of the 1980s (the fall of the Berlin Wall).
Are they wrong? Have they committed an act of folly in leading Washington to Baghdad? They don't think so. They continue to cling to their belief. They are still pretending that everything is more or less fine. That things will work out. Occasionally, though, they seem to break out in a cold sweat. This is no longer an academic exercise, one of them says, we are responsible for what is happening. The ideas we put forward are now affecting the lives of millions of people. So there are moments when you're scared. You say, Hell, we came to help, but maybe we made a mistake.
http://www.jewwatch.com/jew-occupiedgovernments-USSR-Jewish-Bolshevism-Jewish Role.html
Vastaukset 8
Vanhimmat
Kyllä niillä salaliitto sun muita teorioita riittää. Mutta perustuihan neuvostoliittokin täydelliseen aivopesuun. Samankaltaiseen kuin pohjois-koreassa tällä hetkellä vallitsee. Kaikista vaarallisinta on vapaan lehdistön ja tiedotusvälineiden puute kuten oli neuvostoliitossa ja tällä hetkellä esim. pohjois-koreassa, kuubassa, vietnamissa ja kiinassa.
Olen kyllä kuullut,että Lenin oli saksalaisten kätyri,mutta olikin juutalaisten kätyri,ja amerikkalaisten.
minullekin ollut järkytys tämä tieto juutalaisten veritöistä venäjällä
http://www.jewwatch.com/jew-leaders-stalin.html
http://www.jewwatch.com/jew-communists.html#anchor4458
Kumma että ihmiset jaksaa vielä noin tunteenomaisesti haukkua kommunismia.
Itse suhtaudun Neuvostoliittoon nostalgisesti. Näen puistoja joissa ruusut kukkivat; tyttöjä sifonkiruusut hiuksissa, opettajat selittävät opettavaisesti; nuoret parit istuvat puun varjossa, ja kaikilla on töitä, - ei ehkä kovin hyvä palkka, mutta sivubisneksiä tehdään. Ihmiset ovat onnellisia ja viattomia.
Jossain mielessä kommunismi onnistui Neuvostoliitossa, ja minusta kestää vertailun kapitalistisen lännen kanssa. Ei ehkä kulutustuotteiden laatuvertailussa, mutta onnellisuusvertailussa.
Neuvostoliitossa oli ruusunpunaista, koska ihmiset olivat omalla sydänverellään, uhrautuvin ja kollektiivisin ponnistuksin lunastaneet maansa vapaaksi kapitalistisesta riistosta, ja he osasivat jättää pappien puheet arvoonsa, niin se on.
Älä sinä niitä vanhoja Potemkinin kulisseja muistele, vaan mene Kuubaan katsomaan nykypäivän sosialismia. Se on sitä paitsi maa, jossa ihmiset ei tarvii viinaa saadakseen otsaryppynsä siliämään, niinkuin tuolla itäpuolella..
Kuuba on kaukana. Venäjä lähellä, siinä kait se. Viina on pahasta. Minusta kaikkien pitäisi lopettaa juominen, ja alkaa elää kunnollisesti, ja rakastaa toisiaan ja olla ystäviä.
Kas kun Kuuba edustaa vielä jonkin sortin sosialismia, mitä Venäjä ei edusta. Ruotsi taitaapi olla se lähimpänä sosialismia oleva naapurimaa tällä hetkellä. Ja joku jenkkiorganisaatio, CIA mikä lie, luokitteli Ruotsin ainakin kylmän sodan aikana sosialistivaltioksi, tosin toisenlaisen sosialismin edustajaksi kuin NL. Venäjästä sanoisin vain, että "live and let live".
jotka stalinistit ja juutalaiset saivat aikaan
http://www.jewwatch.com/jew-occupiedgovernments-USSR.html
ja pysy ajan tasalla lukemalla tätä linkkiä joka on yksi objektiivisimpia
http://www.jewwatch.com/index.htm