De-Escalation

Baron von Richter: 

David, We are not 

ASKING for anything!

Europe is ours! We can walk 

into Britain whenever We LIKE!

Sir David Kelly : 

If You Think We're going to gamble 

on Herr Hitler's 'guarantees', 

You're making a grave mistake -- 

All those years in England seems 

to have left You none The Wiser : 

We're not EASILY frightened --

Also We know how HARD it is 

for An Army to cross The Channel;

The last little Corporal who 

tried came a cropper --

So Don't Threaten 

or DICTATE to Us until 

You're MARCHING 

up WhiteHALL...! 

And even THEN 

We won't Listen!

Joe Rogan - Does Israel Control Trump?

He's the longest serving prime minister 

in Israeli history uh at this point --

And but I will say that there 

are people, you know, I know people 

go down, you know, rabbit holes on Twitter 

and stuff like that. And I don't -- 

I do think Jeffrey Saxs is, well -- 

I think he was being somewhat 

tongue-in-cheek when he said it, but 

I do think he's overstating his hand --

It's not that Israel runs America. 

If Netanyahu ran America, 

I can promise you we would have 

had a regime change warrant in Iran. 

We would not have stopped 

where Donald Trump stopped. 

If Netanyahu was actually in 

control of the US military, 

instead of just having significant 

influence over it. 

So like I do think there's I mean 

I've just read enough about Netanyahu, 

The Lakudix, The NeoCons -- 

This is The Regime-change War 

that They've wanted. This is Their Seventh. 

This is 7/7 to get Iran. So this is what They want. 

And if you actually even look at The War itself, 

it was like They -- when Trump.... 

It was before and after Trump 

dropped the bunker busters on their nuclear sites, 

Israel just started bombing regime targets. 

They weren't just bombing their nuclear sites. 

They were trying to overthrow The Regime. 

And in fact, They, like made calls 

to these Iranian Generals and 

threatened their families -- basically said, 

"We're going to kill your families 

unless you guys flee right now." 

It just didn't work -- 

They weren't going to DO that. 

And then once that didn't work, 

They were kind of like --

.....and then Iran 

gave Trump An Out -- 

You know, They 

responded with this nonsense, 

you know, the same thing they did after --

after Trump killed Solommani, where 

They fire these rockets, 

They give us advanced warning. 

They make sure We move 

everyone out of the way. 

So because They know 

They know they don't want 

to kill an American there, 

because then, it's fullscale war -- 

But like if they hadn't, you know, 

it's so funny cuz like We put all of this 

in The Mullars' hands, and if They had 

just decided, which every military analyst 

concludes They CAN touch Americans 

in the region, They didn't. 

Had They, this would have been the --

And I think that was The Goal. 

I think that was Netanyahu's goal of it 

was to provoke that response that would 

have led to a regime-change War 

and it didn't work. 

And Trump, you know, to his credit, 

his instinct is to deescalate these things 

when he can --

But also to Trump's um, you know, fault, 

never should have gotten in the thing 

to begin with. 

It was all the whole Iranian nuclear threat 

is as much as the Iraqi nuclear threat. 

I mean, yeah, it is true that they 

have a civilian nuclear program 

that Iraq didn't have --

And it is, I know I saw when uh 

Mike Baker was on, who I love. 

I love Mike Baker, but I think 

he's wrong about all this stuff --

But when he was 

when you -- even you had said 

to him at one point where you were
like, "Yeah, but like you know, 

the counterargument to that is 

that this is like a latent

nuclear deterrent is The Idea;

Not that They're developing 

a nuclear weapon." 

And and Mike was basically like,
"Yeah, but They're up to 60%."
You know, and that's on its way to 90%. 

But the thing is, 

Why weren't They at 90%? 

They didn't have to stop at 60%. 

They mastered the fuel cycle and 

They figured out all this 

technology a long time ago. 

They could have --

They could have enriched up to weapons grade. 

Why did they stop at 60%. 

And why did They then enter negotiations 

with The United States of America about 

the level to which They were enriching uranium? 

Because it's that -- 

it's a latent nuclear deterrent. 

It's a bargaining chip. They were down 

at like 3 to 5% or something 

under The JCPOA 

until Trump tore it up, 

until Trump backed out of it. 

And then under The Rules of The JCPOA,
because they're still in it with Europe, and
we'll see where that goes now, but They were allowed 

to uh up the enrichment once America pulled out. 

And so they exercised that option
in The Agreement and there, you know? 

The idea that they were, um -- 

you know there look --

There was the the annual threat assessment
had come out just a few months before The War
and Tulsi Gabbard signed her name at the bottom 

of it and then testified before Congress 

and it's clear as day --

She turned around and acted like
people were misrepresenting it
but they weren't. It was clear as day. 

Anyone can read it for themselves. 

She said "They have -- 

Iran has not made 

the political decision
to pursue A Nuclear Weapon yet, 

let alone have achieved it 

or or gotten one. 

And when Donald Trump 

was asked about that, 

remember, They said, "Your own
Director of National Intelligence says
that 'They're not developing A Weapon.'" 

And he goes, "Well, I Disagree." 

Have you ever seen 

the -- I'm sure you 

have, the compilation of 

Netanyahu over the years
saying How close Iran is 

to getting a nuclear weapon. 

Yeah, it's great. 

Have you seen there's 

another compilations of him, 

too, where he's just guaranteeing --

Like, all his guarantees 

Like there's one of him in like 

I think it's the year before I was born 

if I'm right--  

It's 1982, and he didn't 

go by 'Benjamin Netanyahu' back then 

he went by -- whatever, his more, 

you know, European-sounded name 

was um and uh --

when did he change names? 

Well, 'cuz they all -- They all --

...when? 

Uh -- '80s, I would guess...? 

It's got to be in The '80s, it was. 

It was Netanyahu by The '90s, 

but in The '80s, They were still 

calling him, whatever, I can't remember 

his... his previous name. 

Why did he change his name? 

Well, they all kind of, you know, 

because the whole thing, Joe, 

is that they're all, you know --

Israel was a European, 

you know, construct -- 

They they were made by 

a bunch of Europeans who came over 

and created Israel, but then They have 

to claim that they're the true Semitic people. 

Is it true that that genetic testing is outlawed there? 

I believe that is true. 

I believe that's true. 

Are you double checking on that? 

ENEMY IMAGE

"It is from Schmitt that 

Samuel Huntington got his idea that 

An Enemy Image is absolutely necessary 

for the cohesion of any society. 

In reality, however, it is primarily an oligarchical society which 

requires an enemy image, 

because that society is based on 

an irrational principle 

of domination 

which cannot stand the scrutiny 

it would receive in peacetime. 

George Orwell understood this aspect well

when he suggested in 1984 that 

The Endless War among Oceania, 

Eurasia,and Eastasia was really 

A War waged by each of these states 

against its own population, 

 for the purpose of perpetuating 

a hierarchical society. 

The key concept dates back 

at least to Ibn Khaldun, 

the 13th century father of Sociology, 

who noted that The Arabs only 

stopped fighting each other when 

it was necessary to unite against 

An Outside Enemy.

from

CARL SCHMITT: POISON GAS ON GERMAN CITIES 

Leo Strauss was the product of three main intellectual and political influences. 

First among these was the proto-Nazi Friedrich Nietzsche, who was designated by Nazi ideologist Alfred Rosenberg as one of the four precursors of Hitlerism (the others were the operatic composer Richard Wagner, the anti-Semitic LaGarde, and the racist Houston Stewart Chamberlain). 

A second was the card-carrying Nazi Martin Heidegger, who praised Hitler in his inaugural speech as rector of the University of Freiburg. 

Finally, there is the card-carrying Nazi Carl Schmitt, the main legal theorist of the Third Reich. 

Schmitt’s ideas have directly contributed to the shattering of the US political consensus under the Bush regime. For Schmitt, politics comes down to the distinction between friend and foe. Starting from this extremely meager reduction of human motivation, he goes on to equate politics with warfare: if there is no warfare or conflict, then politics is dead, and life is no longer worth living. Schmitt therefore wants politics to be the monopoly of a strong state, and he does not like the idea that the state or the government could be influenced by the citizens. Schmitt’s thought is thus revealed as authoritarian, dictatorial, fascistic. It is from Schmitt that Samuel Huntington got his idea that an enemy image is absolutely necessary for the cohesion of any society. In reality, however, it is primarily an oligarchical society which requires an enemy image, because that society is based on an irrational principle of domination which cannot stand the scrutiny it would receive in peacetime. George Orwell understood this aspect well when he suggested in 1984 that the endless war among Oceania, Eurasia, and Eastasia was really a war waged by each of these states against its own population, for the purpose of perpetuating a hierarchical society. The key concept dates back at least to Ibn Khaldun, the 13th century father of sociology, who noted that the Arabs only stopped fighting each other when it was necessary to unite against an outside enemy. 

The card-carrying Nazi Schmitt was also a bitter opponent, not just of the Treaty of Versailles and the League of Nations, but of international law and international treaties in general. Like his neocon descendants of today, he was an ardent unilateralist. Here are some of Schmitt’s typical comments about international law: “We are talking again about basic rights, about the basic rights of peoples and of states, and especially about the basic rights of those states who have, mindful of their own race, gotten themselves into the proper domestic order. Such a state is the national socialist state, which has led the German people back to an awareness of itself and its race. We proceed from the most self-evident of all basic rights, the right to one’s own existence. This is an inalienable, eternal basic right, in which the right to self-determination, self-defense, and to the means of self-defense is included. . . . From our solid standpoint we can see through that world of legalistic argumentation and that huge apparatus of treaties and pacts, and assign this tower of Babel to its rightful place in the history of international law.” 

Schmitt was the author of Article 48 of the 1919 Constitution of the Weimar Republic, which was the clause that allowed the Reich President to declare an emergency or state of siege and thereafter rule by decree. Schmitt’s activity during the 1920s was largely devoted to agitating in favor of the dissolution or marginalization of the Reichstag (parliament) and the institution of a dictatorship of the President of the Reich. One of Schmitt’s favorite sayings was that sovereignty meant the ability to declare a state of emergency. If you can find what organ of government has the ability to call out the state of siege, suspend the legislature, and impose martial law, Schmitt reasoned, you have found the place where sovereignty is actually located. 

For Schmitt, the concept of emergency rule is a totally lawless realm; under it, the ruling authority can do literally anything it wants, without regard to law, separation of powers, constitutional freedoms, equity, or anything else. In one of his essays Schmitt approvingly quotes a speech by the Reich Justice Minister Schiffer to the Reichstag on March 3, 1920, in which Schiffer points out that under Article 48, the Reich President can attack “German cities with poison gas, if that is, in the concrete case, the necessary measure for the re-establishment of law and order.” (Schmitt, Die Diktatur, 201) Schmitt was adamant that the emergency provisions of the Weimar constitution were theoretically and practically unlimited, and could be used to justify the greatest imaginable atrocities. We see here a tradition of thought, alive in the Schmittian-Straussian neocons of today, which would have no trouble in accommodating a crime on the scope of 9/ 11. 

In July, 1932 the Nazis and their allies carried out a cold coup against the minority Social Democratic caretaker government in Prussia, the largest political subdivision of Germany. The pro-Nazi government in Prussia then became the springboard for Hitler’s seizure of power via a legal coup in January 1933. Carl Schmitt was the lawyer for the coup forces in the German supreme court in Leipzig. (The parallels of this action to the Schwarzenegger/ Warren Buffet oligarchical coup in California in 2003 are more than suggestive, since California is the largest US political subdivision in the same way that Prussia was in Germany.) Schmitt also provided legal services for Hitler’s seizure of power in January, 1933. 

Carl Schmitt wrote articles for the gutter-level anti-Semitic tabloid Der Stürmer, edited by Julius Streicher. In 1934, when Hitler massacred the brown-shirted SA leader Ernst Röhm and his faction for supporting a second revolution against the financiers, industrialists, and the army, Schmitt quickly emerged as one of Hitler’s most shameless apologists. In his scurrilous pamphlet, “Der Führer Schützt das Recht” (“ The Führer defends the law”), Schmitt endorsed the Byzantine theory according to which law is a successful act of strength by the stronger party against the weaker. Schmitt wrote that the primary task of the Führer was “to distinguish friend from enemy . . . The Führer takes the warnings of German history seriously. That gives him the right and the power to found a new state and a new order. . . . The Führer protects the law from the worst abuse, when he–in the moment of danger–through the power of his leadership as supreme judge, directly creates law. His role as supreme judge flows from his role as supreme leader. Anyone who wants to separate one of these from the other is trying to unhinge the state with the help of the justice system. . . . the Führer himself determines the content and scope of a crime.” (Schmitt 200) 

This opens the door to every arbitrary outrage under color of law. While these ideas, so dear to today’s ruling neocons, have been applied to Abu Ghraib, it is also clear that they are equally applicable to 9/ 11.