Aryan Skynet

Once Aryan Skynet Goes Live It Doesn't Matter Who Pulled The Switch

Kissinger’s Judeopolitik

kissinger-meir

Henry Kissinger meets with Israel’s Golda Meir

Richard Nixon’s foreign policy guru Henry Kissinger is frequently categorized as a proponent of realpolitik – a “realist” in international relations – as opposed to a Zionist or a neoconservative; but, while Kissinger’s aims and those of the neoconservatives have not always been identical, it would be a mistake not to take Kissinger’s Jewishness into consideration as a factor in the Middle East policies he devised for the Nixon administration.

Kissinger’s sympathy for the Zionist project came to the fore more than once, somewhat subtly with regard to Israel’s nuclear weapons program. A declassified 1969 memorandum reveals that Kissinger acknowledged a nuclear Israel as a destabilizing development; but, as Patrick Slattery parses the document, it also shows America’s national security advisor to lurk somewhere in the vicinity of the Israelis’ corner in the deliberations.

[…] it becomes apparent upon reading the documents that while the gentiles in the administration wanted to halt Israel’s nuclear weapons development, Kissinger (the National Security Advisor and the administration’s most high-profile Jew) actually restrained the administration from using its considerable leverage to halt the Israeli nuclear program and instead successfully championed the policy of accepting Israel as a de facto nuclear weapons state as long as it made no public declarations of its possession of nuclear weapons and allowed the United States to maintain plausible deniability of knowledge of Israeli nukes. […]

Kissinger writes that the representatives of the State Department, the Defense Department, and the Joint Chiefs of Staff concurred in wanting to demand the Israelis to “Give us assurances in writing that it will stop production and will not deploy ‘Jericho’ missiles or any other nuclear capable strategic missile.”

However, Kissinger then immediately states parenthetically that “I do not believe we can ask Israel not to produce missiles. Israel is sovereign in this decision, and I do not see how we can ask it not to produce a weapon just because we do not see it as an effective weapon without nuclear warheads.” Kissinger has had no trouble, however, advocating for interference in Iran’s sovereign decisions. […]

This is yet another illustration of the fact that the essence of Jewish power is the ability to stifle any discussion of Jewish power.1

kissinger-doom

A guest appearance in The Fantastic Four

Later, as secretary of state, Kissinger would recommend a course with dire consequences for the American economy. Muhammad Idrees Ahmad summarizes the secretary’s response to the Yom Kippur War of 1973:

King Faisal of Saudi Arabia and his oil minister Sheikh Yamani had both warned the Nixon Administration that because of its unstinting support for Israel, US oil companies “would lose everything”. Oil companies panicked and Exxon, Mobil and SoCal all took out ads in newspapers advising Nixon against antagonising the Arabs. Jack McCloy, the lawyer for the “Seven Sisters”, warned Kissinger before the war that “the Administration must not think just in terms of the next New York election”. Once the war started, OPEC responded by imposing a comprehensive oil embargo. The price of oil jumped from $3.02 per barrel in October to $11.65 by December, and the crisis precipitated a wave of nationalisations, beginning with Saddam Hussein’s confiscation of US shares in the Basra Petroleum Company.2

Whether swayed by domestic political considerations or by a hidden Zionist affinity, however, Kissinger in the event demonstrated that the demands of organized Jewry meant more to him than the consensus in the defense establishment or opinion in the business community.

kissinger-taylor

Kissinger with Zionist bosom buddy Elizabeth Taylor

[…] under Richard Nixon the US emphatically committed itself to arming Israel. US strategic concerns had no bearing on this decision. It was as much due to Nixon’s cynical ploy to deflect pressure form the Watergate investigations, and Henry Kissinger’s Machiavellian machinations, as the lobby’s arm-twisting. Kissinger had advanced to the position of secretary of state by repeatedly undercutting his predecessor William Rogers, who sought Israel’s withdrawal from the Occupied Palestinian Territories (OPT) and, like Nixon, worried that Israeli intransigence was undermining US oil security. When the war started, Nixon and Defense Secretary James Schlesinger had no intention to intervene; they argued that the US had an obligation to defend Israel but not to defend Israel’s conquests. Egypt was merely trying to recover its own territory. But Kissinger – whose Zionism, according to [journalist Patrick] Tyler, formed “the bedrock of [his] view of the Middle East” – raised a false alarm that other Arab armies were about to join the war against Israel and contravened Nixon, who wanted to engage the Soviets in a joint ceasefire proposal. Kissinger deliberately fomented a superpower confrontation and encouraged Israeli leaders to ignore Nixon’s call for restraint to buy Israel time to secure better ceasefire terms and to finish off Egypt’s besieged 3rd Army. Finally, he misled Nixon about Soviet intentions and exaggerated domestic pressure to get approval for a massive arms shipment to Israel as a response to this “Russian treachery”. Tyler observes that Kissinger was manoeuvering “as if he were a partisan for Israel’s war aims” and “his actions throughout the crisis added up to a focused advocacy more for Israel’s strategic goals than for those of the United States”. “Kissinger’s duplicity was so plain”, he concludes, as “to raise questions of constitutional propriety, not to mention loyalty.” After the war, Kissinger also arbitrarily raised the level of US aid to Israel to $2.2 billion – a provocation that compelled the otherwise pliant King Faisal of Saudi Arabia to announce a comprehensive oil embargo. For the US the war was a disaster. Not only because it depleted US weapons stocks, leading to the near-resignation of the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff George S. Brown, but also because of its wider economic impact from which the US would take nearly a decade to recover.3

Again, Kissinger’s Zionism, to the extent that he exhibited it, was inconsistently evidenced over the years; but it is interesting to note that in 2002 he would encourage regime change to counter “Iraq’s capacity to cooperate with terrorist groups”4 and that Kissinger became President Bush’s initial appointee to head the 9/11 Commission in December of that same year5. It is enough to make one wonder aloud whatever became of that vaunted “realism” for which the former secretary of state is so famous.

Rainer Chlodwig von K.

Endnotes

  1. Slattery, Patrick. “Kissinger’s Role in Gaining U.S. Acceptance of Israeli Nukes a Case Study in Zio Manipulation” DavidDuke.com (August 22, 2015): http://davidduke.com/51751/
  2. Ahmad, Muhammad Idrees. The Road to Iraq: The Making of a Neoconservative War. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press, 2014, p. 198.
  3. Ibid., p. 193.
  4. Kissinger, Henry. “Iraq Is Becoming Bush’s Most Difficult Challenge”. Chicago Tribune (August 11, 2002): http://articles.chicagotribune.com/2002-08-11/news/0208110058_1_regime-change-pre-emptive-action-iraq
  5. Roberts, Joel. “Kissinger to Head 9/11 Commission”. CBS News (December 12, 2002): http://www.cbsnews.com/news/kissinger-to-head-9-11-commission/
Advertisements

About icareviews

Propaganda Minister of #AryanSkynet

29 comments on “Kissinger’s Judeopolitik

  1. icareviews
    January 8, 2017

    Reblogged this on icareviews and commented:

    Let’s see if I can manage to fit a gratuitous Liz Taylor picture into each of my Skynet posts this month.

    Like

  2. Hipster Racist
    January 8, 2017

    This reminds me of the CIA’s R. James Woolsey’s infamous quip about negotiations with the Soviets during the Cold War.

    He said no matter how tense the negotiations were, after the meetings were over, the “American” and the “Soviet” negotiators would retire for drinks and tell each other jokes. Woolsey explains he later read all the jokes in a book titled “The Joy of Yiddish Humor.”

    So that’s how the Cold War worked. At the time, neither the USA nor the USSR were really “run by Jews.” But each thought the other was, so they would send their own Jews to negotiate with the other side.

    So while American and Russian kids were hiding under their desks in fear of nuclear missiles, the “American” and “Soviet” Jews were yukking it up with each other over drinks about how they had each pulled the wool over the eyes of “their goyims.”

    It’s not particularly different than how European kings would use Jews as financial go-betweens. And we can see that Jews of all nations have always had the interests of the Zionist entity at heart even as they posed as “American” or “Soviet.”

    The reason that Jews have traditionally been accused of being a “nation with a nation” is because they are. The reason they are accused of having “dual loyalty” is because they do. These stereotypes don’t just appear out of nowhere – they are based on centuries of observations of how Jews actually behave.

    Liked by 3 people

    • icareviews
      January 8, 2017

      Israel, while benefiting from extravagant U.S. military largesse during the Cold War, attempted to buttress its image as a crucial ally against Soviet communism by offering to use Jews behind the Iron Curtain as spies. How does that not constitute an admission that having Jews in your country is a liability? Of course, as the Pollard case demonstrates, they could be just as willing to rat-tunnel sensitive information in the opposite direction.

      Liked by 1 person

      • Hipster Racist
        January 8, 2017

        And during the Cold War, the majority of the “Atomic Spies” were Jews working for the USSR. ANolen played her cards close to her chest, but when she suggested that the IC are often loyal “to each other” more than to their “own countries” I have a feeling she understood the implications of that, especially since she mentioned how over-represented certain religious groups are in the IC.

        In cultural traditionalist terms, you can see the IC as a sort of “international priest class” – and if you don’t have your own home-grown priest class, whether it’s the “celibates” drawn from your own population, or some sort of professional types drawn from, say, the diplomatic corp, there is always Organized Jewry waiting in the wings to leverage their international network, you know, to “help.”

        Nolen mentioned that Jews, Mormons, and certain kinds of Catholics – whom she describes as more “tight knit” and cultish than other religions – as well as homosexuals – were over-represented in the post-WWII American and British IC. The IC itself is often described as suffering from a “cult like mentality” – even often by themselves.

        The fact that IC analysts are often actually restricted to sourcing from only approved publications makes their myopia and cultish tendencies even more obvious.

        The fact that parts of the spy game are “double agents” and even “triple agents” shows that they are often more “loyal” to themselves then their host nation.

        And which European group has traditionally been seen that way?

        Liked by 2 people

    • indravaruna
      January 9, 2017

      Jews have always played the international “middle-man” role, during the Middle-Ages it was Jewish merchants known as Radhanites who had the monopoly of trade between Christian and Muslim lands, the same happened during the rise of the Soviet Union, it was rich Jews like Armand Hammer that played the middle-man between the URSS and USA.

      Jews especialty is about making shekels of conflict between goyim, it’s no surprise that Jews are shilling hard for a war with Russia that would destroy Europe and maybe Northern America.

      Liked by 2 people

      • icareviews
        January 9, 2017

        I don’t expect to see such a conflict – selling war preparedness is probably big business enough – but I wouldn’t necessarily put it past them, either. The first Cold War wasn’t about provoking an actual outbreak of armed conflict between the two superpowers so much as selling the idea of it. That isn’t to say that the accompanying little “dirty wars” can’t also be plenty lucrative, however.

        Liked by 1 person

    • bob saffron
      January 9, 2017

      “Dual loyalty” is being overly charitable.

      Liked by 3 people

  3. Pingback: Kissinger’s Judeopolitik | Aryan Skynet | rudolfblog

  4. bob saffron
    January 9, 2017

    More gratuitous Liz Taylor shots, please. (Golda Meir looks uncannily similar to LBJ at that angle).

    Liked by 1 person

    • Hipster Racist
      January 10, 2017

      OK, sure, Taylor was attractive in her day, but she was never a Nicole Kidman.

      But yeah, Meir really does look like LBJ’s older brother …

      Like

      • icareviews
        January 10, 2017

        Nicole Kidman was cute enough in the nineties, but has been weird looking since pretty much the beginning of the twenty-first century. If you want a quintessential Aryan beauty, look at Ingrid Bergman.

        Like

      • Hipster Racist
        January 10, 2017

        OK, Taylor Swift then.

        Not that I don’t like brunettes, Natalie Wood was a 10.

        Like

      • icareviews
        January 11, 2017

        Who knew Hitler Racist was a 14/88er?

        Liked by 1 person

      • bob saffron
        January 10, 2017

        Dead ringers.

        Liked by 2 people

      • bob saffron
        January 10, 2017

        Christa Päffgen, Aryan goddess.

        Like

      • bob saffron
        January 11, 2017

        Nico, Icon.

        Like

      • bob saffron
        January 12, 2017
      • Hipster Racist
        January 12, 2017

        I think it’s pretty well known among IQ researches that blondes (a proxy for NW European, after all) are generally smarter than most other groups.

        There is also a correlation between beauty and brains – although there’s very much a Hollywood cultural stereotype opposite of this. But generally better looking means smarter and vice versa. Ugly people tend to be dumber than beautiful people.

        There are some unattractive and overweight people that compensate by presenting a good personality and being friendly, but that actually goes against averages. It’s usually the beautiful and smart people that don’t have any sort of inferiority complex thus have no need to be rude to others.

        There’s some comedian that does a funny bit about why people automatically hate him, because he looks like every “1980s frat boy stereotype from 1980s movies.” Icareviews could spend the rest of his days just writing about the anti-WASP and proxy (blond frat boy, blonde sorority airhead, stuffy WASP golfer, etc.) stereotype the Jews put out since the 1960s to today. Two blatant examples being Revenge of the Nerds and Caddyshack although there are countless others.

        Liked by 1 person

      • icareviews
        January 12, 2017

        Tonight I saw absolutely one of the most hilarious depictions of racists in a movie EVER. Ever seen the 1991 Denzel Washington vehicle Ricochet? John Lithgow is the bad guy, and even though he’s not really a white nationalist, he hooks up with a bunch of idiotic Aryan Nation types in prison, and in one scene they have a sword fight (!) to settle a dispute like true knightly Aryan warriors. What’s really dumb – and it’s clear that the Jews who made this movie were pulling out all the stops and going out of their way to make these KKK-affiliated neo-Nazis look like buffoons – is that they tied books and newspapers to themselves with duct tape to substitute for medieval armor. Then, later on, they’re in some neo-Nazi fetish bar with a midget walking around on the bartop pouring drinks just to remind the viewer what a marginal freakshow and cesspool the white nationalist movement inhabits.

        Liked by 1 person

      • bob saffron
        January 12, 2017

        “To eliminate any bias in the IQ tests caused by ethnic and racial differences, Zagorsky dropped all African Americans and Hispanics from the analysis.”

        Oops. How did that slip through?

        Like

  5. Pingback: Kissinger’s Judeopolitik | Hipster Racist

  6. guest
    January 10, 2017

    ot Could you add a search box somewhere to the site?
    And the ability to link to comments directly, while at it…

    Since search itself already works, for example:
    https://aryanskynet.wordpress.com/?s=Lindauer

    I was also just reading:
    Israeli cable admits that, like the US, they had no evidence of Iraq WMDs

    “In a diplomatic cable from Tel Aviv, dated April 6, 2005 (05TELAVIV2125_a), Israeli officials professed that they had ‘no evidence’ of Saddam Hussein developing WMDs, and that the Iraqi regime ‘would never support al-Qaeda’ or ‘jihad’.”

    If you Google said cable, 05TELAVIV2125_a, 5 results, 0 on Bing.

    They also quote Mearsheimer and Walts An Unnecessary War, 2003:

    “there is hardly any direct evidence to support this claim. Instead, the war was motivated in good part by a desire to make Israel more secure. According to Philip Zelikow, a former member of the president’s Foreign Intelligence Advisory Board, the executive director of the 9/11 Commission, and now a counsellor to Condoleezza Rice, the ‘real threat’ from Iraq was not a threat to the United States. The ‘unstated threat’ was the ‘threat against Israel’, Zelikow told an audience at the University of Virginia in September 2002. ‘The American government,’ he added, ‘doesn’t want to lean too hard on it rhetorically, because it is not a popular sell.’

    On 16 August 2002, 11 days before Dick Cheney kicked off the campaign for war with a hardline speech to the Veterans of Foreign Wars, the Washington Post reported that ‘Israel is urging US officials not to delay a military strike against Iraq’s Saddam Hussein.’ By this point, according to Sharon, strategic co-ordination between Israel and the US had reached ‘unprecedented dimensions’, and Israeli intelligence officials had given Washington a variety of alarming reports about Iraq’s WMD programmes. As one retired Israeli general later put it, ‘Israeli intelligence was a full partner to the picture presented by American and British intelligence regarding Iraq’s non-conventional capabilities.’

    Israeli leaders were deeply distressed when Bush decided to seek Security Council authorisation for war, and even more worried when Saddam agreed to let UN inspectors back in. ‘The campaign against Saddam Hussein is a must,’ Shimon Peres told reporters in September 2002. ‘Inspections and inspectors are good for decent people, but dishonest people can overcome easily inspections and inspectors.’

    At the same time, Ehud Barak wrote a New York Times op-ed warning that ‘the greatest risk now lies in inaction.’ His predecessor as prime minister, Binyamin Netanyahu, published a similar piece in the Wall Street Journal, entitled: ‘The Case for Toppling Saddam’. ‘Today nothing less than dismantling his regime will do,’ he declared. ‘I believe I speak for the overwhelming majority of Israelis in supporting a pre-emptive strike against Saddam’s regime.’ Or as Ha’aretz reported in February 2003, ‘the military and political leadership yearns for war in Iraq.’”

    That just about sums it up nicely in a nutshell.

    Liked by 1 person

  7. Pingback: Kissinger’s Judeopolitik | National Vanguard

  8. Hipster Racist
    January 13, 2017

    they tied books and newspapers to themselves with duct tape to substitute for medieval armor.

    Yet from a pure engineering perspective, that is about the best body armor you could get in prison. YOU try to use a sword to slash through freaking phone book armor!

    /autiste

    Like

    • icareviews
      January 13, 2017

      Real hardcore 14/88ers would have moonmanned a couple of bruthas and used their ape-like skulls and arm and leg bones to fashion helmets and bone-mail skirts.

      Like

    • icareviews
      January 14, 2017

      Hey, Hipster, have you noticed anything funny going on with comments in WordPress? None of my comments are displaying on other sites. See if you have a comment from me on your latest post that maybe went into spam. I’m wondering if WordPress is experiencing problems or if I’ve been shadow-banned somehow.

      Like

  9. bob saffron
    January 13, 2017

    I remember The Hobbit House bar in Manila, Philippines, where service staff were all dwarves. Don’t remember any Nazis nor any phone-book sword fights. Just a lot of blacks from the Subic Bay naval base. Cheap beer, all very oneiric.

    Liked by 2 people

  10. bob saffron
    January 13, 2017

    Denzel Washington is unbearable. If you want blacks, try Carl Franklin’s Devil in a Blue Dress (1995) or One False Move (1992).

    Liked by 1 person

  11. Pingback: The Line in the Sand | Aryan Skynet

Leave a Reply - Your Comment WILL be Moderated.

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: